- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:13:21 +1000
- To: "Igor Netto" <Igor.Netto@access-company.com>, "Thomas Landspurg" <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>, "SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS" <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Hi All, During last week's teleconf [1] we discussed the proposed models for dealing with icons. The working group reached a resolution to use the model which was previously proposed [2] where by the widget engine intelligently selects an icon by comparing the dimensions of the available the display context to the dimensions of an icon. The inclusion of a 'role' attribute was rejected on the grounds of a lack of use cases, lack of semantics for role and the proposed corresponding values (big, small, screenshot, etc), and because it is not a common feature across market-leading widget engines. If vendors wish to use 'role', then they are free to do so by including it into their own custom namespace: <widgets xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets" xmlns:ex="http://widgextension.org/" > <icon src="icon_ss.png" ex:role="screenshot"/> <icon src="icon_big.png" ex:role="big"/> <content src="widget.html"/> </widgets> The resolution the WG reached is to now allow zero or more <icon> elements. The widget engine must derive the width and height of an icon by inspecting the image data. The supported image formats will be GIF87,GIF89,PNG, and JPG (SVG will be optional). Kind regards, Marcos [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Mar/0064.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008Mar/0012.html -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 03:14:01 UTC