Re: [w3c/manifest] BREAKING CHANGE: Replace "badge" with "monochrome" (#833)

@NotWoods commented on this pull request.



> @@ -2855,6 +2858,87 @@ <h2 class="icon-title">
           </div>
         </section>
       </section>
+      <section>
+        <h2>
+          Single color icons
+        </h2>
+        <p>
+          Some platforms enforce that icons be displayed with a <dfn>single
+          color</dfn>, where only the transparency of the icon can be
+          controlled. As web applications need to across multiple
+          platforms, it is possible to indicate that an icon can have a
+          user-agent-specified color applied by adding the <a>single-color</a>

I think that mask, image-mask, and cut-out could be confused with maskable. Image masking is like cutting out parts of the image that aren't inside the mask. I'd like to steer away from mask/cut terminology.

Similarily, I think you could argue "the **purpose** of this icon is that it will be used as **maskable**" sounds just as odd. I think you could rephrase it as:
- The purpose of this icon is that it is maskable
- The purpose of this icon is that it is monochrome

I like silhouette but it doesn't fit that dichotomy. I'm going to switch back to monochrome as that has the most consensus. 

-- 
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/pull/833#discussion_r434906616