+ problems probably don't really allow that. -J
+
+> Putting a JPEG in the web form is not an option from my point of
+> view :-) but perhaps there could just be a "web-editable" flag supplied
+> by plugins, and things could be changed to respect it.
+
+>> Replying to myself: would you accept patches to support
+>> `hook(type => 'htmlize', editable => 0, ...)` in editpage? This would
+>> essentially mean "this is an opaque binary: you can delete it
+>> or rename it, and it might have its own special editing UI, but you
+>> can never get it in a web form".
+>>
+>> On the other hand, that essentially means we need to reimplement
+>> editpage in order to edit the sidecar files that contain the metadata.
+>> Having already done one partial reimplementation of editpage (for
+>> comments) I'm in no hurry to do another.
+>>
+>> I suppose another possibility would be to register hook
+>> functions to be called by editpage when it loads and saves the
+>> file. In this case, the loading hook would be to discard
+>> the binary and use filter() instead, and the saving conversion
+>> would be to write the edited content into the metadata sidecar
+>> (creating it if necessary).
+>>
+>> I'd also need to make editpage (and also comments!) not allow the
+>> creation of a file of type albumjpg, albumgif etc., which is something
+>> I previously missed; and I'd need to make attachment able to
+>> upload-and-rename.
+>> -s
+
+>>> I believe the current branch meets your requirements, by having
+>>> first-class wiki pages spring into existence using `add_autofile`
+>>> to be viewer pages for photos. -s
+
+> In a way, what you really want for metadata is to have it in the album
+> page, so you can batch-edit the whole lot by editing one file (this
+> does mean that editing the album necessarily causes each of its viewers
+> to be rebuilt, but in practice that happens anyway). -s
+
+>> Replying to myself: in practice that *doesn't* happen anyway. Having
+>> the metadata in the album page is somewhat harmful because it means
+>> that changing the title of one image causes every viewer in the album
+>> to be rebuilt, whereas if you have a metadata file per image, only
+>> the album itself, plus the next and previous viewers, need
+>> rebuilding. So, I think a file per image is the way to go.
+>>
+>> Ideally we'd have some way to "batch-edit" the metadata of all
+>> images in an album at once, except that would make conflict
+>> resolution much more complicated to deal with; maybe just
+>> give up and scream about mid-air collisions in that case?
+>> (That's apparently good enough for Bugzilla, but not really
+>> for ikiwiki). -s
+
+>>> This is now in the main page's TODO list; if/when I implement this,
+>>> I intend to make it a specialized CGI interface. -s
+
+>> Yes, [all metadata in one file] would make some sense.. It also allows putting one image in
+>> two albums, with different caption etc. (Maybe for different audiences.)
+>> --[[Joey]]
+
+>>> Eek. No, that's not what I had in mind at all; the metadata ends up
+>>> in the "viewer" page, so it's necessarily the same for all albums. -s
+
+>> It would probably be possible to add a new dependency type, and thus
+>> make ikiwiki smart about noticing whether the metadata has actually
+>> changed, and only update those viewers where it has. But the dependency
+>> type stuff is still very new, and not plugin friendly .. so only just
+>> possible, --[[Joey]]
+
+----
+
+'''I think the "special extension" design is a dead-end, but here's what
+happened when I tried to work out how it would work. --[[smcv]]'''
+
+Suppose that each viewer is a JPEG-or-GIF-or-something, with extension
+".albumimage". We have a gallery "memes" with three images, badger,
+mushroom and snake.
+
+> An alternative might be to use ".album.jpg", and ".album.gif"
+> etc as the htmlize extensions. May need some fixes to ikiwiki to support
+> that. --[[Joey]]
+
+>> foo.albumjpg (etc.) for images, and foo._albummeta (with
+>> `keepextension => 1`) for sidecar metadata files, seems viable. -s
+
+Files in git repo:
+
+* index.mdwn
+* memes.mdwn
+* memes/badger.albumjpg (a renamed JPEG)
+* memes/badger/comment_1._comment
+* memes/badger/comment_2._comment
+* memes/mushroom.albumgif (a renamed GIF)
+* memes/mushroom._albummeta (sidecar file with metadata)
+* memes/snake.albummov (a renamed video)
+
+Files in web content:
+
+* index.html
+* memes/index.html
+* memes/96x96-badger.jpg (from img)
+* memes/96x96-mushroom.gif (from img)
+* memes/96x96-snake.jpg (from img, hacked up to use totem-video-thumbnailer :-) )
+* memes/badger/index.html (including comments)
+* memes/badger.jpg
+* memes/mushroom/index.html
+* memes/mushroom.gif
+* memes/snake/index.html
+* memes/snake.mov
+
+ispage("memes/badger") (etc.) must be true, to make the above rendering
+happen, so albumimage needs to be a "page" extension.
+
+To not confuse other plugins, album should probably have a filter() hook
+that turns .albumimage files into HTML? That'd probably be a reasonable
+way to get them rendered anyway.
+
+> I guess that is needed to avoid preprocess, scan, etc trying to process
+> the image, as well as eg, smiley trying to munge it in sanitize.
+> --[[Joey]]
+
+>> As long as nothing has a filter() hook that assumes it's already
+>> text... filters are run in arbitrary order. We seem to be OK so far
+>> though.
+>>
+>> If this is the route I take, I propose to have the result of filter()
+>> be the contents of the sidecar metadata file (empty string if none),
+>> with the `\[[!albumimage]]` directive (which no longer requires
+>> arguments) prepended if not already present. This would mean that
+>> meta directives in the metadata file would work as normal, and it
+>> would be possible to insert text both before and after the viewer
+>> if desired. The result of filter() would also be a sensible starting
+>> point for editing, and the result of editing could be diverted into
+>> the metadata file. -s
+
+do=edit&page=memes/badger needs to not put the JPG in a text box: somehow
+divert or override the normal edit CGI by telling it that .albumimage
+files are not editable in the usual way?
+
+> Something I missed here is that editpage also needs to be told that
+> creating new files of type albumjpg, albumgif etc. is not allowed
+> either! -s
+
+Every image needs to depend on, and link to, the next and previous images,
+which is a bit tricky. In previous thinking about this I'd been applying
+the overly strict constraint that the ordered sequence of pages in each
+album must be known at scan time. However, that's not *necessarily* needed:
+the album and each photo could collect an unordered superset of dependencies
+at scan time, and at rebuild time that could be refined to be the exact set,
+in order.
+
+> Why do you need to collect this info at scan time? You can determine it
+> at build time via `pagespec_match_list`, surely .. maybe with some
+> memoization to avoid each image in an album building the same list.
+> I sense that I may be missing a subtelty though. --[[Joey]]
+
+>> I think I was misunderstanding how early you have to call `add_depends`
+>> as mentioned above. -s
+
+Perhaps restricting to "the images in an album A must match A/*"
+would be useful; then the unordered superset could just be "A/*". Your
+"albums via tags" idea would be nice too though, particularly for feature
+parity with e.g. Facebook: "photos of Joey" -> "tags/joey and albumimage()"
+maybe?
+
+If images are allowed to be considered to be part of more than one album,
+then a pretty and usable UI becomes harder - "next/previous" expands into
+"next photo in holidays/2009/germany / next photo in tagged/smcv / ..."
+and it could get quite hard to navigate. Perhaps next/previous links could
+be displayed only for the closest ancestor (in URL space) that is an
+album, or something?
+
+> Ugh, yeah, that is a problem. Perhaps wanting to support that was just
+> too ambitious. --[[Joey]]
+
+>> I propose to restrict to having images be subpages of albums, as
+>> described above. -s
+
+Requiring renaming is awkward for non-technical Windows/Mac users, with both
+platforms' defaults being to hide extensions; however, this could be
+circumvented by adding some sort of hook in attachment to turn things into
+a .albumimage at upload time, and declaring that using git/svn/... without
+extensions visible is a "don't do that then" situation :-)
+
+> Or extend `pagetype` so it can do the necessary matching without
+> renaming. Maybe by allowing a subdirectory to be specified along
+> with an extension. (Or allow specifying a full pagespec,
+> but I hesitate to seriously suggest that.) --[[Joey]]
+
+>> I think that might be a terrifying idea for another day. If we can
+>> mutate the extension during the `attach` upload, that'd be enough;
+>> I don't think people who are skilled enough to use git/svn/...,
+>> but not skilled enough to tell Explorer to show file extensions,
+>> represent a major use case. -s
+
+Ideally attachment could also be configured to upload into a specified
+underlay, so that photos don't have to be in your source-code control
+(you might want that, but I don't!).
+
+> Replying to myself: perhaps best done as an orthogonal extension
+> to attach? -s
+
+> Yet another non-obvious thing this design would need to do is to find
+> some way to have each change to memes/badger._albummeta show up as a
+> change to memes/badger in `recentchanges`. -s
+
+Things that would be nice, and are probably possible:
+
+* make the "Edit page" link on viewers divert to album-specific CGI instead
+ of just failing or not appearing (probably possible via pagetemplate)
+
+* some way to deep-link to memes/badger.jpg with a wikilink, without knowing a
+ priori that it's secretly a JPEG (probably harder than it looks - you'd
+ have to make a directive for it and it's probably not worth it)
+
+----
+
+Hi smcv, great plugin. I am an ikiwiki newbie but so far I've had success using your plugin.
+I've integrated the jquery masonry plugin into the albumitem template and it works great.
+But is there a way to create thumnails of different sizes? I've passed thumnailsize option
+and value to album directive and while it does create the new thumbnail sizes it doesn't use them,
+The 96x96 thumbnails still appear on the page no matter what I do. - jaime