serverless-iiif provides both the top-level sizes array and a scaleFactors list within the tileset description. Both of these are calculated starting with the original dimensions of the image and scaling down by half until neither dimension is larger than the tile size.
OpenSeadragon v4.1.0 introduced a bug that results in a corrupted image display (due to some bad internal calculations leading to bad tile requests) when the sizes array is present. Obviously this is OSD’s issue to fix, which they have in HEAD but not yet in a tagged release. But it got me thinking about whether there’s actually any value in providing sizes at all, given that the spec lists it as a “MAY include” and the server offers arbitrary scaling anyway.
At this point, I'm just barely leaning toward removing it, or at least making it configurable with default: false, since I don't think it offers any information that's not available elsewhere. I guess I don't really know what real-world implications there might be either way.
serverless-iiif
provides both the top-levelsizes
array and ascaleFactors
list within the tileset description. Both of these are calculated starting with the original dimensions of the image and scaling down by half until neither dimension is larger than the tile size.OpenSeadragon v4.1.0 introduced a bug that results in a corrupted image display (due to some bad internal calculations leading to bad tile requests) when the sizes array is present. Obviously this is OSD’s issue to fix, which they have in
HEAD
but not yet in a tagged release. But it got me thinking about whether there’s actually any value in providing sizes at all, given that the spec lists it as a “MAY
include” and the server offers arbitrary scaling anyway.At this point, I'm just barely leaning toward removing it, or at least making it configurable with
default: false
, since I don't think it offers any information that's not available elsewhere. I guess I don't really know what real-world implications there might be either way.