[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Missing Oxygen "view-fit-*" icons
From:       James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj () acm ! org>
Date:       2008-05-12 19:25:57
Message-ID: 482899C5.4040000 () acm ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> On Saturday, 10. May 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> We appear to be missing:
>>
>> 	view-fit-height
>> 	view-fit-width
>> 	view-fit-window
> [snip]
>> These icons have been posted to FreeDesktop.org as missing icons.
> 
> Right, and also
> - they didn't (yet?) get into the spec, mainly caused by inactivity of the
>   spec maintainers that didn't care to act on the discussion in the xdg list.
> - plus, I thought we had agreed to use zoom-* as prefix instead of view-*?
> 
> Short recap of the xdg discussion for everyone who didn't follow it
> (i.e. Nuno, I assume):
> 
> - JRT suggests these icons for inclusion
> - jimmac suggests to use zoom-best-fit instead of view-fit-window,
>   and to drop the "page" icons in favor of generic magnifier glasses
> - JRT disagrees with jimmac, saying it would GNOME-ify us
> - I suggest to use zoom-fit-{width,height,best}-page for "page" icons,
>   so that they fall back to zoom-fit-{width,height,best}
> - JRT basically agrees, and we still discuss some minor details
> - neither dobey nor jimmac take any action in the spec, to this day
> - at least I pursued dobey in time to rename zoom-best-fit to zoom-fit-best

I see this as two different sets of icons with "zoom" indicating the
magnifying glass icons with no resolution to the question of:

	zoom-fit-best vs. view-fit-window

However, zoom-fit-*-page for these icons would work +/-.  If that is the
final decision from XDG, please advise and edit:

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/icon-naming-spec/to-be-named

I note that I think that "window" would be a better choice than "page"
since fit something to window is what is actually being done.

IAC, a name that is a subset of something in the standard is probably best.

> So, based on the discussion, I'd still say we need icon in any case:
> zoom-fit-width (magnifier glass for zooming to the width of the window)
> 
> and four optional ones:
> zoom-fit-height (magnifier glass for zooming to the height of the window)
> zoom-fit-best-page (like the view-fit-window icon that James attached)
> zoom-fit-width-page (like the view-fit-width icon that James attached)
> zoom-fit-height-page (like the view-fit-height icon that James attached)
> 
> If we've got zoom-fit-width, we could adjust Okular (or rather, the 
> KStandardActions) to use that one and zoom-fit-best for the "Fit to width" 
> and "Fit to window" actions. That would make us look like GNOME's Evince 
> (hm... good or bad thing?), but would work ok still.
> 
> If we've got the *-page icons too, we can go back to the KDE 3 approach of 
> using the "page" icons instead of the magnifier icons for fit-to-whatever.
> 
>> We have HiColor icons for these which were installed as KDEClassic when
>> it was decided that we couldn't have HiColor icons even when needed for
>> fallback.  There are also Slick icons but only in 16x16 & 22x22.
>>
>> The HiColor icons are attached.  Are these enough like Oxygen to install
>> as Oxygen?
> 
> That would be poison for any artistic consistence. I share your preference for 
> making stuff work correctly before making it beautiful, but using non-Oxygen 
> icons in the Oxygen namespace is really something that we should hand over to 
> incompetent 3rd-party application developers, we can't do that.
> 
> If Nuno says he'll get us at least the zoom-fit-width icon in time then
> I believe that we don't need to think about such drastic measures.
> 
>> Or, can we resolve the HiColor issue (a fallback theme must
>> have icons in it or it is useless) and install them as HiColor?
> 
> Oxygen is kdelibs' fallback, and this issue has been discussed at length here 
> already, please don't bring it back unless you've got new arguments that 
> might convince the people that you didn't convince before.

The discussion of the difference between fallback and default has indeed
occurred before and the conclusion was that they are NOT the same thing.

As I have tried to clearly state.  Using the default icon theme as the
fallback icon theme will ONLY work until an XDG standard for a common
method of selecting icon themes for all desktops is promulgated.  When
that happens and other desktop's apps are run on KDE4, they will not
know that Oxygen is being used as a fallback (unless the icon theme spec
is changed [which I recommend] to specify secondary fallbacks) and if an
icon theme other than Oxygen (actually the current KDE default) is
selected, then (totally) missing icons will NOT fall back to Oxygen and
no icon will be found :-(.  I realize that this is not simple to
understand (however, to be a good software engineer, you must learn to
think this way).  KDE is using the default icon theme as a default in
the code.  This is not a good design.

I note that this is not a corner case.  If using an icon theme other
than the current KDE default is a corner case, then we will not really
be supporting icon themes and we should not ship them.  Till the icon
theme selection issue is resolved, the current kludge will continue to
work, but that does not mean that it isn't a kludge.

However, all of this is irrelevant here since the issue is that we do
not have Oxygen icons to use as a fallback so we need either Oxygen
icons or a real fallback.

"pinheiro" said he would make them, so we will have Oxygen icons and
won't have to worry about that for a while.

-- 
JRT




______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists@kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]