Re: [w3c/manifest] Example suggests that `icons` `sizes` mean a minimum size, but normative text doesn't support that (#925)

@marcoscaceres wrote:
> I know... "semantic drift". That's ok, we can adapt. @NotWoods tells me that Fenix also uses sizes in the way you suggested above.

FWIW, apart from the examples in the specification ([and MDN](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Manifest/icons)), the [specification of the `sizes` member](https://www.w3.org/TR/image-resource/#sizes-member) says "The sizes member is equivalent to a link element's sizes attribute, and is processed in the same manner. ". The [examples](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#rel-icon) in the HTML specification for an icon link relation show a single sizes entry being provided for single image formats and [MDN says](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/link) "Most icon formats are only able to store one single icon; therefore most of the time the sizes attribute contains only one entry".

When I [implemented](https://github.com/webianproject/shell/blob/master/chrome/shared/js/services/WebApp.js#L214) this part of the specification it was certainly my interpretation that single-image formats would have a single sizes entry and that the size was meant to be the exact size and not a minimum size (unless "any" is specified as the value). I used the `sizes` member in an [algorithm](https://github.com/webianproject/shell/blob/master/chrome/shared/js/services/WebApp.js#L324) to pick the best available icon based on these assumptions ("best available" in this case meaning the smallest icon that is larger than or equal to a requested size).


-- 
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/925#issuecomment-661080458