[Pidgin] #12231: XMPP smiley size

[Pidgin]

#12231: XMPP smiley size
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  Darius                     |        Owner:  deryni 
     Type:  defect                     |       Status:  closed 
Milestone:                             |    Component:  XMPP   
  Version:  2.6.6                      |   Resolution:  wontfix
 Keywords:  Emoticon smiley size XMPP  |  
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------

Comment(by darkrain42):

 I've elided a bunch of flamebaiting and things off-topic to this ticket.
 I don't really care what client you use or don't use, nor do I think I've
 been particularly antagonistic (certainly no more so than the original
 commenter or you).

 Replying to [comment:2 Eklei]:
 > Actually, as late as 2.6.5, the largest emoticon I received over Google
 Talk (not just sent, so it actually went through) was 62 KB in size.  ''62
 KB.''  That's a wee distance from 8 KB.  How could I even receive such a
 huge 96x96 file?

 My comment earlier was inaccurate.  I was looking at the wrong changeset
 ("block size" for In-band bytestream file transfers (which are limited to
 8KiB)).  Prior to Pidgin 2.6.6, there was no effective limit on the size
 of custom emoticons, which was actually in gross violation of the
 specification (my previous comment on ''that'' point was correct).  Pidgin
 2.6.6 actually corrected this [#8356 bug], which resulted in the complaint
 here.

 My response still stands, which is that the specification states very
 clearly that the blob SHOULD NOT be more than 8 KiB, and that's why
 libpurple WILL NOT support sending larger blobs.

 >  Well that part is actually kind of funny.  Pidgin does not actually
 enforce a dimensions limit, or scale down the file itself.  It only scales
 down the ''display'' of ''received'' files.  So this file, while it
 appeared to me as only 84x96, was in fact 220x251, both in saved size and
 on the sender's screen.  This probably qualifies as its own bug.

 Scaling is tricky; I don't believe GTK (or GDK; I forget which) can
 properly scale animated GIFs (it certainly cannot save them), which has
 caused a number of issues where people ''don't'' want Pidgin to scale
 images.  That said, some ability to control whether images are scaled when
 creating emoticons, or better feedback over whether an image will be
 allowed to be sent would be good (and are certainly valid requests -- feel
 free to file them if they have not already been filed).

 > So people were able to send huge files as emoticons over Gtalk, and
 somehow they didn't lag and they weren't dropped by the server (either the
 files or the connections).  I don't know if you were simply mistaken or
 lying about this, and quite frankly I don't care.  Basically your answer
 is "heavens no, we can't possibly add an option".  Why does that not
 surprise me?

 My response is "No, we won't do that because it's in gross violation of
 the Bits of Binary spec as-is".  *That said*, as I ''also'' mentioned in
 my previous comment, a way to effectively send images (a la AIM's Direct
 IM) of varying sizes ''is'' a valid request, is also something I would
 like to see (I don't think I'd use it much), and is already a pre-existing
 ticket (#10056).  Once there's an accepted standardized way to do that,
 I'd also love to see that integrated with the 'Custom emoticon'
 functionality, rendering this whole ticket moot, but before then, the size
 limit will remain.

 > You don't like his tone?  Well guess what: ''I don't like yours.''  I
 wonder why someone might have insinuated that an added option was anathema
 to the Pidgin project.  It's not like people lurking this ego theater
 might have come to certain conclusions about its direction, right?  Hey
 would you look at that!  The defect is already closed with your project's
 favorite tag, ''"wontfix"!  ''It's not like you just proved his point or
 anything.

 I closed it for valid reasons.  I also pointed out that his tone was
 counterproductive to me, personally.  I don't particularly like responding
 to argumentative people (unfortunately, I like even less letting
 inaccurate statements stand), and I find it hard to maintain a calm
 demeanor while doing so.  I was trying (maybe I didn't achieve this) to
 point out a manner in which the questions could have been asked in a way
 that I would have been MUCH happier to explain the changes made, look at
 the code to figure out what the limit is now, and ''why'' the changes were
 made.

 > I've seen this nonsense time and time again, though Pidgin truly is one
 of the worst. This is why your silly little open source ideology is not
 going to prevail.  But hey, what do I know?  I'm just some stupid luser. 
 I can just screw off, right?  ''Exactly.''

 Err, no.  But it would be nice if you'd actually read my response where I
 attempted to articulate ''why'' the changes were made (as I've said, I
 didn't do as good a job as I could, because I was pretty annoyed.  It has
 nothing to do with my "hating users".  (I don't hate users as a general
 class.  There are certain people that aggravate me more than others, but I
 wouldn't even say I hate them.)  The change was made because the
 specification being used to send Custom emoticons EXPLICITLY STATES that
 the blob size shouldn't exceed 8KiB.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/12231#comment:3>
Pidgin <http://pidgin.im>
Pidgin