Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21. May 2008, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> Jakob Petsovits wrote:
>>> That's what my original idea (and even proposal for the ArtLibreSet) was
>>> as well, but when thinking about this once more, it appears better to
>>> have an icon that is not in the current theme but has an accurate
>>> metaphor, as opposed to have a row of plain magnifier glasses that all
>>> look the same.
> [snip]
>>> Makes page-zoom, which intentionally does *not* act as fallback for other
>>> zoom-* icons.
>> Ah maybe.  However, we still need an icon named: "zoom" for fall back
>> for missing zoom-* icons.  Are all KDE icon themes going to have all of
>> the "zoom-*" icons.  I don't think so.
> 
> No, that's the whole point that I tried to explain: no fallback could 
> reasonably cater for all the different zoom icons, so if a theme doesn't have 
> those then it better falls back to Oxygen 

Falling back to Oxygen is something that only KDE does.  You need to 
broaden your thinking to the free desktop with other applications, other 
toolkits, and other icon themes.  In short, you need to think outside 
the box -- KDE centric thinking is the box and it needs to go.

> instead of using an incorrect icon. 
> Better inconsistent in the style than conveying a wrong metaphor.
> 
That is basically wrong.  Consistent style is more important.  Themes 
can use "Inherits" to fallback to other styles if they want to.

And, it is contrary to the theory of the new icon naming scheme.  The 
new icon names are supposed to form trees where they can fall back 
towards the root of the tree.

-- 
JRT
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists@kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists