Re: Steps to creating a browser standard for the moz-icon:// scheme

2010/1/29 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>

> 2010/1/28 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>
>
>> On Jan 28, 2010, at 8:39 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>>
>> It's interesting to note that on most modern OSes (Mac OS X, Vista, Win 7
>> ...) the OS actually does create a pre-computed high quality icon for many
>> files, e.g. images, PDF, Word, Photoshop, .... It is almost free to get this
>> from the OS, and the OS also has 3 default sizes for it. It would be great
>> to provide access to this if you have a File handle to it.
>>
>>
>> Mac OS X has 5 default sizes and can reasonably efficiently interpolate
>> sizes in between. On the other hand, iPhone OS doesn't have any file icons,
>> or even a really user-visible concept of files. So I'm not sure we can make
>> too many assumptions about what will hold across platforms.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>>
> Sure - there are some platforms where it may not be available (including
> perhaps winxp?). But it's an interesting idea to expose these if they are
> available, and if they're not available, then fall back to some default.
>

Perhaps if we found some creative commons icons to use as defaults for the
most used extensions. It wouldn't match the native theme but at least we'd
have something for cases where platform icons are not available. We'd need
to have some number of sizes. I think Windows goes to a max of 72x72, while
Mac OSX goes to 128x128. Mozilla defines the size as:

   *   Parameter:   size   *   Values:      [<integer> | button |
toolbar | toolbarsmall | menu | dialog]   *   Description: If integer,
this is the desired size in square pixels of the icon   *
  Else, use the OS default for the specified keyword context.


<integer> scales the icons to the desired size. I think we'd at least
need a few different sizes for a default set of icons. I'm not sure
that such icons exist.



>
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>> 2010/1/28 Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
>>> <pierre.lafayette@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Adam, could you provide your thoughts on using about:icon?
>>>
>>> I'd prefer not to use about:icon, but I don't think it matters much.
>>> Currently, the only URL in the about scheme that's accessible to web
>>> content is about:blank.  I believe Internet Explorer has a "res"
>>> scheme that might be more appropriate.  That's a general way to refer
>>> to browser-provided resources with URLs.  Perhaps
>>> res:icon?ext=html&size=32
>>>
>>> At a higher level, we could bikeshed about the name forever.  You
>>> should pick whatever you think is most aesthetic since you're driving
>>> the process.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Pierre.