- Issue created by @catch
- πͺπΈSpain ckrina Barcelona
Huge +1 to this. We need to make life easier to FEDs and provide good defaults for the rest.
- ππΊHungary GΓ‘bor Hojtsy Hungary
I think shipping with Olivero responsive image config is a good idea if we are shipping with Olivero. Why don't we think core should ship with those? Core already ships with Olivero specific blocks for example.
- π¬π§United Kingdom catch
That's a good point, I think we could probably include these in Olivero's default config?
- Status changed to Postponed: needs info
26 days ago 2:43pm 12 August 2024 - π¦πΊAustralia pameeela
Overall responsive images will be covered by the media management track, and/or the individual content type tracks. But should we create a core issue for updating Olivero to use responsive images anyway?
- π¬π§United Kingdom catch
But should we create a core issue for updating Olivero to use responsive images anyway?
The only thing Olivero-specific is the break points. The actual configuration, although maybe it could be shipped with Olivero, would be in the content types etc. which ship with the standard profile. I'm assuming Drupal CMS is going to completely replace the standard profile, or at minimum its constituent parts with recipes.
- π¦πΊAustralia pameeela
Yes, Drupal CMS will. That's a requirement we've documented and will be covered by the work tracks. Do we want to update Standard profile also? Or not worry about it since we are addressing it in Drupal CMS?
- π¬π§United Kingdom catch
If Drupal CMS is going to use Olivero, then it probably makes sense to ship Olivero / core with the responsive images recipe for Olivero, and then rely on that in Drupal CMS - that way it would be possible to build up other non-Drupal CMS recipes that depend on it without an additional dependency.
- π¦πΊAustralia pameeela
Moving this over to the Drupal CMS queue so we can track the aspect of what changes would be needed in core.