RE: Constrained specification of Icon element

Excellent! I'm happy with this.
cheers 
/o


> 
> Hi Ola,
> Apologies for the delay in replying. I, and others, agree 
> with your presented use cases and have changed the spec to 
> match. Please see comments below. Can you please get back to 
> us ASAP confirming that you agree with the changes. We intend 
> to republish this specification next week, but we must have 
> confirmation from you that you are satisfied with the changes.
> 
> 2009/11/10 Ola Andersson <ola.andersson@ericsson.com>:
> > Hi,
> > I understand it might be too late to modify the spec now 
> but I still think the spec isn't clear with regards to <icon> 
> size and should be clarified, maybe in some future version at 
> least. I'm also not fully convinced your description (bottom 
> of this mail) about clipping an SVG icon is correct. This is 
> because the Widget P&C spec states for the <icon> 
> width/height attributes: "The width is only applicable to 
> graphic formats that have no intrinsic width or height (e.g., 
> SVG)." However, SVG do have intrinsic size when SVG 
> width/height are specified [1] (except in the case when 
> widht/height are %-values) so the widget spec might want to 
> clarify this and your example below should, according to the 
> <icon> definition, ignore the <icon> width/height and render 
> the icon using the intrinsic 1000x1000px size.
> >
> > To me this behavior is not what you want, rather I propose 
> the following changes to the <icon> size:
> >
> > 1. For the widget <icon> element's width and height attributes the 
> > spec should state that the width and height attribute 
> values are to be 
> > seen as a guide to the UA in order for the widget provider 
> to indicate 
> > the preferred size of the icon. The UA is allowed to ignore the 
> > width/height in order to change the size of the icon, 
> exampels of when 
> > this might occur is if a UA is to display icons from different 
> > providers in a single GUI (and thus prefer to display them 
> all at the 
> > same size). Or if a UA needs to enlarge icons in a GUI due to 
> > accessability requirements (vision impaired users...)
> >
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > 2. icon width/height attributes should apply to all graphic 
> formats, not just those without intrinsic size. Having this 
> would make it possible to reuse the same icon resource for 
> multiple resolutions. The following example (almost from the 
> widget spec):
> >
> 
> Agreed. Removed restriction on usage of the width and height 
> attribute (applies to all graphic formats).
> 
> 
> Ok, the spec now reads:
> 
> [
> Width/Height
> A numeric attribute greater than 0 that represents, in CSS 
> pixels [CSS21], the author's preferred width/height for the 
> icon. A user agent may ignore this value when changing the 
> height icon to fit a rendering context or for accessibility reasons.
> ]
> 
> 
> > <icon src="icons/big.png"/>
> > <icon src="icons/medium.png"/>
> > <icon src="icons/small.png"/>
> >
> > could then be rewritten as:
> >
> > <icon src="icons/big.png"/>
> > <icon src="icons/big.png" width="128" height="128"/> <icon 
> > src="icons/big.png" width="64" height="64"/>
> >
> > Which would save the author the work of creating different 
> pngs, and save bandwith. All UAs have features for raster 
> scaling so no issue with that.
> >
> 
> I think in the above cases the author would just declare (and 
> the UA would just use the icon in all contexts):
> 
> <icon src="icons/big.png"/>
> 
> A more complicated example would be:
> 
> <icon src="icons/big.png"/>
> <icon src="icons/medium.png"/>
> <icon src="icons/big.png" width="16" height="16" />
> 
> However, I do not see a need to add such complexity to the 
> spec. In other words, though I have changed the definition of 
> the icon width and height, I am reluctant to change the 
> parsing model to allow the same icon to be declared more than 
> once (as above).
> 
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
> 
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
>

Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 13:25:16 UTC