https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/userexperience/conceptual/MobileHIG/IconMatrix.html App icon (required for all apps) 120 x 120 120 x 120 152 x 152 76 x 76
Right? I updated my pull request to implement the no-namespace-magic for Android. https://github.com/AxelNennker/cordova-cli/commit/890d6a64cdf459a389ba7104097f97603338b4e1 2014-02-21 22:43 GMT+01:00 Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com>: > there is a pull request that implements this gap: prefix and phonegap > namespace stuff but this is Cordova and we have cdv: as prefix and another > namespace: xmlns:cdv="http://cordova.apache.org/ns/1.0"; > Looks like config.json adapted by both projects is a way out. > > > 2014-02-21 21:36 GMT+01:00 Don Coleman <don.cole...@gmail.com>: > > Icons are a drag. Explicit configuration sucks, but is the way to go. >> >> It would be nice if the Cordova solution was compatible with PhoneGap >> Build >> icons< >> http://docs.build.phonegap.com/en_US/3.1.0/configuring_icons_and_splash.md.html#Icons%20and%20Splash%20Screens >> > >> . >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > What is your favorite explicit configuration? >> > Am 21.02.2014 16:49 schrieb "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io>: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
