Kayle
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Joined: Nov 27, 2006
|
#1 id:26866 Posted Jun 15, 2009, 11:59 pm
|
Out of curiosity, is there a particular reason the png format was left off the list of acceptable formats?
Personally, I find pngs end up looking the best in the final format, so I was mainly wondering if this was just a preference thing or if there was really a valid reason against it.
[Edit:] Also, why only 32x32? That's an awfully small image, and they're a little hard to see especially at the resolutions most people have nowadays.
|
......................... Owner/Coder -- Malevolent Whispers -- Development Phase - Not accepting players
Coder -- Star Wars: The Sith Wars -- Open Alpha - Players Welcome - Full System Re-writes Imminent.
FUSS Project Team Lead -- SmaugMuds.Org - The Smaug MUDs Community Center
I3 Contact: Kayle@SithWars
Last edited Jun 16, 2009, 12:22 am by Kayle
|
|
KaVir
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 2,149
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
|
#2 id:26868 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 1:02 am
|
I believe the size and format are designed to be compatible with ZMud/CMud.
However there's no reason why you couldn't add additional fields for differently sized icons.
|
......................... KaVir at God Wars II: godwars2.org 3000 Roomless world. Manual combat. Endless possibilities.
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,783
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#3 id:26897 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 9:12 am
|
What KaVir said, though I've observed it's tricky to get people to follow the specification.
Roughly a third of the muds I crawl have errors in the MSSP values they return, particularly when it comes to the 32x32 icon, which either points to a non existent file or contains an invalid image.
I added some sanity checking and the crawler page highlights incorrect fields in red.
So I think it's pointless to make up new variables unless you have a mudlist that uses them so people will have an incentive to both report the variables, and report them correctly. It'd be nice if mudbytes' mssp implementation would add some sanity checking and notify muds when they're sending useless output.
|
Last edited Jun 16, 2009, 9:22 am by Scandum
|
|
|
|
Rendelven
Apprentice
Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Jan 7, 2009
|
#5 id:26899 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 9:48 am
|
I believe 32x32 is an acceptable size for the favicon.
|
|
|
Cratylus
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,770
Joined: May 22, 2006
|
#6 id:26900 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 10:12 am
|
Rendelven said:I believe 32x32 is an acceptable size for the favicon.
On my screen, a 32x32 favicon is downright enormous. I agree that in general it
seems like it should suffice. However, I use a relatively small resolution. Some people
use a relatively large resolution, and 10 years from now my guess is that resolution
may be such that 32x32 seems a bit quaint for a favicon.
I don't know for sure, but it can't hurt to accommodate such a thing.
Scandum said:What KaVir said, though I've observed it's tricky to get people to follow the specification.
Funny thing about a community spec. If you don't actively seek consensus in good
faith from the start, you wind up seeing consensus later anyway, but without your input.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
|
|
|
quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,815
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#7 id:26902 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 10:39 am
|
Considering that most forum avatars are at least 80x80, and often 100x100, and are also generally 24-bit jpeg/bmp format, I think a 32x32 icon is probably only marginally useful.
I know if I cared about advertising my game, I'd want a good-looking image on the listing page. It might be nice to have that tiny icon for clients, but if the protocol is designed primarily for mud listing services, those icons are unlikely to see much use.
|
......................... 
|
|
Cratylus
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,770
Joined: May 22, 2006
|
#8 id:26903 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 10:47 am
|
quixadhal said:I know if I cared about advertising my game, I'd want a good-looking image on the listing page.
A BANNER field sounds like a good idea.
BTW, hey Scandum, Wodan added telopt mssp support to FluffOS, meaning any mud
on http://lpmuds.net/intermud.html that you see as running FluffOS 2.16* can be added to
your MSSP page.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
|
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,783
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#9 id:26905 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 11:56 am
|
Cratylus said:If you don't actively seek consensus in good faith from the start, you wind up seeing consensus later anyway, but without your input.
Your server is the only one that intentionally does not follow my specification, the errors in the other listings seem just that, errors.
Cratylus said:BTW, hey Scandum, Wodan added telopt mssp support to FluffOS, meaning any mud
on http://lpmuds.net/intermud.html that you see as running FluffOS 2.16* can be added to
your MSSP page.
Only a few of them, pretty much all of the dead-souls ones report garbage, nice job crat. I'll simply remove your entry and individual lpmuds can email me once they get their act together.
|
Last edited Jun 16, 2009, 12:03 pm by Scandum
|
|
|
|
Cratylus
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,770
Joined: May 22, 2006
|
#11 id:26907 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 12:00 pm
|
Scandum said:pretty much all of the dead-souls ones report garbage
Please explain what you mean by "garbage"
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
|
|
|
Guest
Unregistered
|
#12 id:26910 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 12:59 pm
|
KaVir said:I believe the size and format are designed to be compatible with ZMud/CMud.
Went looking, and Zugg doesn't seem particularly interested in supporting MSSP in either client. So the 32x32 size restriction seems moot. If the icons are to end up being used in some fashion on listing sites, I'd say going as high as 100x100 would do nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,783
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#14 id:26914 Posted Jun 16, 2009, 1:56 pm
|
Samson said:Went looking, and Zugg doesn't seem particularly interested in supporting MSSP in either client. So the 32x32 size restriction seems moot. If the icons are to end up being used in some fashion on listing sites, I'd say going as high as 100x100 would do nicely.
As long as the telnet servers don't start kicking off any client that negotiates mssp it can always be added to mud clients on a later date.
I'm not an expert, maybe someone with experience in this area can share what the most useful size and supported formats should be.
How about 100x100, allow gif, png, jpg, bmp, and a maximum filesize of 32 KB? This would be for the current ICON variable.
|
Last edited Jun 16, 2009, 1:58 pm by Scandum
|
|
|
|
