Re: [whatwg] Canonical Image and Color

Tab, You’re right if we take as given that: 1. FF and Chrome will finally fix the bug with handling different size attributes (hopefully they will) 2.standard aspect ratio will be 1:1 (although maybe it can be different) 3.the layout of hi-res favicon will differ from a standard (16x16/32x32) favicon. Compare those: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1830800/temp/icons.jpg
Generally seems like it could work. But on other hand the battle for high-res icons has been won by Apple’s Touch Icons. Almost sure that more websites have a touch icon than an icon with a size attribute exceeding 128px. Around 20% has an apple icon from top-10000.
What do you think could be the fallback scenario (in case there is no proper icon)? Generated by browser?
In a case someone wanna see grabbed touch icons for top-1000 website: https://yadi.sk/d/CZgnIW6UZxpTg 
When I see it my sense of beauty says no to any API;)


Mike Tomshinsky
tomshinsky@yandex-team.ru



On 26 авг. 2014 г., at 10:42, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Mike <tomshinsky@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>> 2) There is already a couple of standards or quasi-standads:
>>>    - favicons (most promising seems to be the increasing of their size and svg support)
>>>    - apple-touch-icon used by Apple and Android
>>>    - msapplication-TileImage used by MS
>>>    - Firefox OS icon (detached case)
>>>    - SpeedDial API by Opera (as an extension)
>> 
>> There's also <link rel=icon>, which is the way to do this.
> 
> Particularly when used with the sizes='' attribute, which lets you
> provide small favicons *and* large icons suitable for use in tiles
> like this.
> 
> ~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 17:21:48 UTC