W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [Widgets] confi.xml - icon element

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:46:41 +1000
Message-ID: <b21a10670803171446g1c03ee47g8eb7363787f06cd3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Igor Netto" <Igor.Netto@access-company.com>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org

Hi Igor,

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Igor Netto
<Igor.Netto@access-company.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
> I share Thomas' point of view that defining a role for icons is a good idea.
> I also see the point of defining if the "role" should be mandatory or not.
> If it's not mandatory, what should be the default behaviour?

Depends on what a "role" means. Again, what are some more candidate
values and their semantics? So far we have words like:

 * small
 * big
 * screenshot
 * favicon

> I also would like to discuss the possibility of defyining a "degradation"
> path for icons and roles.
> For example imagine the widget creator build a package with only one icon
> with "screenshot" role.
> The same image could be used (with resizing and format conversion
> automatically provided by the widget framework) for "small" and "favicon".
> In this way we don't force widget creators to build icons for all roles...
> it wil be also possible to extend the total set of roles in specific widgets
> implementations without breaking compatibility (and keeping a personalised
> look for each widget).

See my previous email [1]. I talked about this (intelligently
selecting an appropriate icon based on the available size of the
display context).

Kind regards,
Marcos

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Mar/0012.html
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 21:47:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 March 2008 21:47:26 GMT