Re: [w3c/manifest] Icon shapes and masking (#555)

I agree that Option C has a lot of downsides, but it may be the most pragmatic way forward. :(

My worry about Option B is that we enshrine non-optimal icons for platforms that don't use a circular safe zone. Additionally, correct branding is certainly something that many site owners will want pixel-perfect control over, which will not be the case if we have to add or subtract pixels on different platforms. Matt has already mentioned iOS squircles, but Windows is also different.

More generally, some of the challenges with Option C can be mitigated, e.g. by specifying that the platform-specific icons are optional, and that the presence of a generic icon required for us to consider using any platform-specific one.

The whole point of this feature is to allow developers to supply a platform-specific icon, and wrapping some genericity into the feature seems counter to the original goal. We'd have to try and solve this problem again for platforms which introduce or use different semantics .

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/555#issuecomment-404180347