As much as I'd like a single icon source I do not think it is the right path. To do this right I think we need to audit all possible icons for each platform and create a map to analyze what could be distilled across platforms.
Ideally we'd accept a vector format (SVG) and generate all these ridiculous sizes but designers will not like this. Pixel perfection, especially for a springboard icon, is paramount. The only way we're getting there safely is zero magic and explicit configuration. Lame, I know. On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com> wrote: > How about this strategy: > > project_dir/config.xml > - no new elements in config.xml like cdv:icon > - no new attributes in icon element in config.xml like cdv:platform or > gap:platform > - do not invent stuff we have to support for the rest of our life. > > On all platforms: > - if config.xml contains a <icon src="whatever.png"/> without any > attributes like width and heigth, then copy that src to to all platform > specific locations where that platform expects launcher icons and update > config files like manifest.webapp on FirefoxOS if there isn't a specific > icon element for that location (see later). > - no downscaling of icons to lower sizes > - no upscaling of icons to higher sizes > - do not add dependencies to new node modules (e.g. to parse icon files) > > On Android: > I) if there is a specific <icon src="icon.png" width="48" /> then copy > that icon.png to res/drawable-mdpi (height is ignored if width is present, > no check for non-sqare icons) > II) Other sizes are handled according to this list from: > http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html > > - 36x36 for low-density > - 48x48 for medium-density > - 72x72 for high-density > - 96x96 for extra high-density > > Directories not matching this algorithm that have names starting with > res/drawable get the biggest icon if no default icon is available (I). > III) icons with width or height other than the ones mentioned here are > ignored. > > On FirefoxOS: > See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Developing/Manifest#icons > > For Firefox OS, icons should follow the app icon > guidelines< > https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox-os/icons/>, > they should not have a drop shadow, and they should be in the following > sizes: > 128 x 128 For display on the Firefox Marketplace 60 x 60 For the actual > on-device icon; only the 128px icon is mandatory, but it is recommended to > include this size as well for optimal device icon display > https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/products/firefox-os/icons/ > > I) ignore icon elements in config.xml without width or height attributes > II) copy all icons mentioned in config.xml with width or height equal to > 60 or 128 to the app's root and create an icon section in manifest.webapp > that matches these icons. > III) if no icon is specified for width/height 60 or 128 then copy each icon > mentioned in config.xml that has width or height specified. > > On other platforms: > some strategy matching the ones for Android and FirefoxOS. If a size is > there that is typical for that platform (72,144 for ios) then us only those > matching icons. Try to help developers. > > -Axel > > > > > > > > 2014-02-13 9:56 GMT+01:00 Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com>: > > > The topic is reaching politics status... > > > > I think it is worth some effort to keep phonegap and cordova aligned. > > What is "Adobe"'s position on W3C widget and xml vs json? > > > > -Axel > > > > Regarding which PR to accept: I want support for launcher icons and I do > > not care whether my PR is accepted or the other one. > > Actually I do not understand why CB-2606 is open for so long. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2606 > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-12 23:33 GMT+01:00 Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com>: > > > > Part of what you are seeing is the phonegap namespace extensions that are > >> added for build.phonegap.com and the online tools. [1] [2] > >> > >> > >> [1] > >> > >> > http://docs.build.phonegap.com/en_US/3.1.0/configuring_basics.md.html#The%20Basics > >> [2] > https://github.com/phonegap/phonegap-start/blob/master/www/config.xml > >> > >> > >> @purplecabbage > >> risingj.com > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Just started a new thread to propose removing the namespace. > >> > > >> > Don't the we should use "gap:density", since that's pretty PhoneGap-y > as > >> > opposed to Cordova-y. > >> > > >> > How about we have "size" and "density" attributes that are just > >> synonyms? > >> > > >> > Off for the day. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hm. I guess the id test is historical stuff. It is legal XML and the > >> > parser > >> > > ignores it. > >> > > > >> > > Regarding the NS prefix: cdv vs gap > >> > > I am quite sure I did not invent cdv myself. > >> > > > >> > > Regarding the w3c widget standard: I am OK with ditching it. Should > >> there > >> > > be a poll or how do you handle such things? > >> > > All app templates should remove namespaces then, right? > >> > > > >> > > Isn't there another thread around namespaces breaking the wp > platform? > >> > > > >> > > Anyway, I think we should follow the phonegap way with e.g > >> gap:density > >> > for > >> > > now. And ditch namespaces later. > >> > > > >> > > Axel > >> > > Am 12.02.2014 22:38 schrieb "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org>: > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Given we are the only 'widget spec' impl in use today I'm ok > with > >> > > > diverging > >> > > > > and not adding namespace confusion. Def want config to be > explicit > >> > and > >> > > > not > >> > > > > have magical implicit mappings. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Axel Nennker < > >> > ignisvul...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > - My implementation does not use "id". Don't know what this or > >> > might > >> > > > > mean. > >> > > > > > >> > > > Found it from your test in spec/test-config.xml > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > - I do not want to discuss the sense of xml namespaces in > this > >> > issue > >> > > > if > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > can avoid it. The current template config.xml defines two > >> > namespaces > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > for this issue's implementation I do not want to change that. > >> So I > >> > > > would > >> > > > > > not drop the widget namespace and would not support > >> > > > > > "platform"-without-prefix. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Having gap:platform there makes the property seem like an > >> second-class > >> > > > maybe-not-supposed-to-be-there kind of attribute to me. > >> > > > I'd be happy to change the default template to not reference the > >> widget > >> > > > spec and to make cordova's the default namespace if that will make > >> your > >> > > > inner XML validator rest at-ease, but I really feel strongly > against > >> > > having > >> > > > XML namespaces creep in. I don't think that most devs know what > they > >> > do, > >> > > > and our tools wouldn't support you changing the gap: namespace > >> prefix. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > - I would follow the phonegap example > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://docs.build.phonegap.com/en_US/3.1.0/configuring_icons_and_splash.md.html#Icons%20and%20Splash%20Screens > >> > > > > > that defines e.g. " > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > <icon src="icons/android/ldpi.png" gap:platform="android" > >> > > > > > gap:density="ldpi" /> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > " and I would like to don't parse the icon file to infer > >> > parameters. > >> > > > > > Developers want need icons for their app on all platforms they > >> > > support. > >> > > > > So > >> > > > > > they will create all of them in all polished sizes and > >> densities. > >> > > > > > My Android implementation puts icons without cdv:density into > >> > > > > > "drawable/icon.png" regardless of width/height. > >> > > > > > What behaviour would you suggest when both lines are present > in > >> one > >> > > > > > config.xml > >> > > > > > <icon src="icon48.png" width="48" cdv:platform="android" /> // > >> > would > >> > > > end > >> > > > > up > >> > > > > > in drawable-mdpi by your suggestion > >> > > > > > <icon src="icon-mdpi.png" cdv:density="mdpi" > >> cdv:platform="android" > >> > > /> > >> > > > // > >> > > > > > would end up in drawable-mdpi too > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > My thinking here was that density says the same thing as size, so > I > >> > would > >> > > > just not support density (or make size="mdpi" an alias for > >> size="48"). > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I think that developers know what is the "platform-way" for > each > >> > > > > platform. > >> > > > > > On Android the usual way is to specify densities. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - I would not use "size" because that is not w3c widget style. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- Axel > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2014-02-11 20:22 GMT+01:00 Andrew Grieve < > agri...@chromium.org > >> >: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Would love to move this along. Would like to get buy-in from > >> > others > >> > > > > > > first though. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The proposal in this PR is to add tags like: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > <icon id="icon" src="icon.png" /> > >> > > > > > > <icon id="logo" src="logo.png" width="255" height="255" > /> > >> > > > > > > <icon src="logo-android.png" width="255" height="255" > >> > > > > > > cdv:platform="android" cdv:density="mdpi" /> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > My feedback: > >> > > > > > > - What is "id" for? > >> > > > > > > - Supporting "cdv:platform" is fine, but we should also > >> support > >> > > just > >> > > > > > > "platform=". I'd be fine to drop xmlns=" > >> > > http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets > >> > > > " > >> > > > > > > from the file. > >> > > > > > > - I don't think there are any platforms that support > >> non-square > >> > > > icons. > >> > > > > > > I think size="###" would be better than width= && height= > >> > > > > > > - What happens if you don't specify a size? Do we sniff it > >> from > >> > the > >> > > > > > > png header? This might be nice as a follow-up, but I'd lean > >> > towards > >> > > > > > > making it required for the first cut. > >> > > > > > > - cdv:density seems redundant with respect to size. Icons on > >> > > android > >> > > > > > > are 46px at mdpi, so the size can be used to derive the > >> density. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Grieve < > >> > > > agri...@chromium.org> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > He Axel, thanks for spearheading this. Will have a look > >> > shortly. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Axel Nennker < > >> > > > ignisvul...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> Andrew, > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> any comments to the current implementation? > >> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/cordova-cli/pull/126 > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> Joe commented that the new class in config_parser.js > named > >> > > "icon" > >> > > > > > should > >> > > > > > > >> be named "Icon" but I left it as is because the other > >> classes > >> > > are > >> > > > > > > lowercase > >> > > > > > > >> too. > >> > > > > > > >> There was another comment that namespaces in config.xml > >> > > attributes > >> > > > > are > >> > > > > > > >> SchnickSchnack/chatter. > >> > > > > > > >> I think that we should use the cordava namespace if > >> config.xml > >> > > > > > deviates > >> > > > > > > >> from the W3C widget definition. > >> > > > > > > >> These two are the only comments I got. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> I tested this on Android and FirefoxOS. > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> Any chance to accept the request (at least the Android > >> part)? > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> -Axel > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
