Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 26, 2023. It is now read-only.

Choosing which icons are linked in the webmanifest #38

Closed
ciampo opened this issue Jan 25, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Choosing which icons are linked in the webmanifest #38

ciampo opened this issue Jan 25, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@ciampo
Copy link

ciampo commented Jan 25, 2018

It would be good if the configuration allowed the user to specify if a group of icons should be included in the manifest file.

Example:

"icons": [
  {
    "src": "src/images/favicon.png",
    "sizes": [48, 144, 512],
    "manifest": true
  },
  {
    "src": "src/images/favicon.png",
    "sizes": [180],
    "ios": true,
    "manifest": false
  } 
]
@arthurbergmz
Copy link
Owner

Why a group of icons should not be in the manifest?

@madmoizo
Copy link

@ciampo my second proposition should solve this, check it #44

@ciampo
Copy link
Author

ciampo commented Jan 28, 2018

@arthurbergmz If we start generating icons for multiple browsers and OSs (e.g Chome, Apple touch icons, safari mask-image, Edge tiles), the Web App Manifest file would very quickly bloat.

Also, some of these icons would be created for specific use cases (e.g the iOS icon with rounded borders, the MS tile icon with a solid color in the background, the chrome icon with a transparent background...).

Putting all the icons in the Web App Manifest would leave the choice of the icon to the browser, given the icon size and type, which means that potentially Chrome could pick up and use the icon that was made for Edge tiles if that icon has the better combination of image type and resolution.

@ciampo
Copy link
Author

ciampo commented Jan 28, 2018

@frlinw Thanks for putting together that issue — @arthurbergmz it can probably make more sense to discuss all the improvements that we would like to land in the next version in the same issue perhaps?

In that case, we can close this issue (and the other ones that I opened recently) and discuss everything in the same issue

@arthurbergmz
Copy link
Owner

We will keep the discussion under the proposal of #44 . Closed.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants