cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Axel Nennker <ignisvul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: cordova launcher icon support https://github.com/apache/cordova-cli/pull/126
Date Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:56:46 GMT
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 <purplecabbage@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 <agrieve@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 <ignisvulpis@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" <agrieve@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 <
> > ignisvulpis@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 <agrieve@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 <
> > > > agrieve@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 <
> > > > ignisvulpis@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
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message