W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: [manifest] Manifest "sizes" fallback logic

From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:51:03 +0100
Message-Id: <1444726263.914769.408712465.2052F512@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: Binyamin <7raivis@inbox.lv>, public-webapps@w3.org
Hi Binyamin,

Thank you for your question.

I think this behaviour should be left to the implementation there is a
lot of UI decisions here that can't be spec'd. For example, Chrome would
likely pick a 32x32 image when it needs a 16x16 one but might not do the
other way around. Some UA might avoid taking a 32x32 image instead of a
16x16 image because one is twice as big as the other and might not be
optimized to be seen as small. Obviously, all browsers should do a best
effort in picking an image.

-- Mounir

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, at 21:01, Binyamin wrote:
> בע"ה
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Does "sizes" (https://w3c.github.io/manifest/#sizes-member) has any
> fallback for device required different icon sizes?
> 
>     {
>         "icons": [
>             {
>                 "src": "32x32.png",
>                 "sizes": "32x32"
>             }, {
>                 "src": "48x48.png",
>                 "sizes": "48x48"
>             }, {
>                 "src": "128x128.png",
>                 "sizes": "128x128"
>             }
>         ]
>     }
> 
> 1. For example, would device request for 16x16 return scaled down image
> 32x32.png?
> 2. What about request 40x40 - would it scale up 32x32.png or scale down
> 48x48.png (40x40 is in middle of both those sizes (+8 = 48, -8 = 32))?
> 3. Would request 96x96 use 128x128.png?
> 4. Would request 192x192 and 512x512 use 128x128.png?
> 
> 
> 
> Binyamin
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 08:51:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:58 UTC