Re: [manifest] Manifest "sizes" fallback logic

בע"ה


Maybe lets define standard spec for it
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/409, so that every browser
vendor/engine would know what is correct to do. For example lets help to
decide to pick 32x32.png or 48x48.png while requiring missing 40x40
size image.


Binyamin


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr> wrote:

> Hi Binyamin,
>
> Thank you for your question.
>
> I think this behaviour should be left to the implementation there is a
> lot of UI decisions here that can't be spec'd. For example, Chrome would
> likely pick a 32x32 image when it needs a 16x16 one but might not do the
> other way around. Some UA might avoid taking a 32x32 image instead of a
> 16x16 image because one is twice as big as the other and might not be
> optimized to be seen as small. Obviously, all browsers should do a best
> effort in picking an image.
>
> -- Mounir
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, at 21:01, Binyamin wrote:
> > בע"ה
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Does "sizes" (https://w3c.github.io/manifest/#sizes-member) has any
> > fallback for device required different icon sizes?
> >
> >     {
> >         "icons": [
> >             {
> >                 "src": "32x32.png",
> >                 "sizes": "32x32"
> >             }, {
> >                 "src": "48x48.png",
> >                 "sizes": "48x48"
> >             }, {
> >                 "src": "128x128.png",
> >                 "sizes": "128x128"
> >             }
> >         ]
> >     }
> >
> > 1. For example, would device request for 16x16 return scaled down image
> > 32x32.png?
> > 2. What about request 40x40 - would it scale up 32x32.png or scale down
> > 48x48.png (40x40 is in middle of both those sizes (+8 = 48, -8 = 32))?
> > 3. Would request 96x96 use 128x128.png?
> > 4. Would request 192x192 and 512x512 use 128x128.png?
> >
> >
> >
> > Binyamin
>