- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:46:41 +1000
- 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 UTC