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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Bug 163311
From:       Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-06-28 22:37:08
Message-ID: 20080628223708.GA15479 () ugly ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 01:00:18PM -0700, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> Icons should not be moved around to address this issue -- doing so is
> a kludge.
>
oh, that issue, right. from previous discussions you should know that i
agree with you on that point ... but, well, those who do the work can
f**k themselves as much as they feel like. who cares - the users
shouldn't notice much of that (of course they will notice some, as
moving hundreds of icons never goes without mistakes. but who are we to
dictate efficient processes to artists?)

> I think that it was wrong to rename the existing HiColor icons to
> KDEClassic; it made no sense.
>
uhm, well. maybe. who cares.




> But, now with standardized icon names,
>

now you're again switching topics. the discussion (and the bug) started
with app menu icons.

> the installation of HiColor icons has become problematic due to the
> possibility of more than one icon for a standard icon name being
> installed.  The standard needs to address this as well as the above issue.
> 
> Note that this does mean that an application needs to supply ONE HiColor
> icon for the DeskTop's menu entry.  The standard clearly states this.
> If there isn't one, than a copy of one the is available is acceptable.
> For many KDE applications, such an icon exists or did exist, but was
> moved/removed.
> 
> Then any substitution should be done by the Iconloader code.  And, the
> code should be configurable -- it should not be hard coded.  The reason
> for this is simple: it is much easier to edit a small file in /etc/XDG/
> than it is to change the code or to move the icons around.
> 
> > you might not like it given your need for order and consistency,
> 
> While a mix of icons is acceptable, the icon themes should not be more
> mixed than is necessary.
> 

> > but a) most people care more for the branding aspect and
> 
> If this means that now even with the standard icon names that when
> using KDE and GNOME apps on the same desktop that they shouldn't be
> using the same icons,
>
it isn't. as usual, you set yourself a trap by bringing two different
subissues into the game and making a complete mess of them. app icons !=
standard icons (except for the cases where an app uses a standard icon
to represent itself).

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 02:59:02PM -0700, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> we can not have multiple desktops installing HiColor icons.  The only
> other solution would be to have an independently maintained HiColor
> theme and this seems like it would be redundant since we already have
> the Tango project.
> 
indeed.
but you are forgetting two possibilities:
- when you install from source, you can (and usually will) install each
  desktop into an own prefix. you define the preference order by
  exporting XDG_DATA_DIRS appropriately then.
- in packages, the distributors can clean up the mess.
is this optimal? well, probably not. who cares?

> What hasn't changed is that KDE still will not follow the spec.
>
where?

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Confusion, chaos, panic - my work here is done.
______________________________________________________________________________
kde-artists@kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]