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

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Bug 163311
From:       Kenneth Wimer <wimer () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-07-06 23:54:01
Message-ID: 200807070154.01899.wimer () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 07 July 2008 01:08:11 James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> Kenneth Wimer wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 July 2008 06:25:46 James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> >> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >>> 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?)
> >>
> >> So, how do we get the code to do this rather than having to move the
> >> icons around.
> >>
> >> Note: it appears that the solution in GNOME is that apps install actual
> >> HiColor icons in 'hicolor'.  But, KDE4 has apps install Oxygen in
> >> 'hicolor'.  It works, but it needs to be improved (i.e. fixed).
> >
> > Wrong, in Gnome the apps install Gnome icons in hicolor. Gnome icons are
> > based on the Tango style. There is no definition of a hicolor icon style
> > and there never will be so this argument is senseless. If KDE decides to
> > use Oxygen as their base style then those icons belong in hicolor.
>
> I think that I said 'appears'.  The Gnome icon theme is basically a
> generic or neutral one and although some of the icons such as the
> folders do have distinctive style elements, many of them don't have
> anything that indicates what style they are.  Or, is this a distinction
> without a difference?  Does GNOME simply call its generic icon theme
> "Gnome"?

The Gnome icons are stylistic neutral if you assume that Tango is the style 
that they seperate themselves from. Again, I say that there is no such thing 
as no-style-artwork. Art always has some style, it is part of what it is. The 
spec is relatively clear on the naming I think.

> IAC, there is nothing distinctive or highly styled about the 'Gnome'
> icon them, which is the point.  It doesn't matter if it is called
> "hicolor.gnome" or simply "gnome".  GNOME used to install those icons as
> HiColor, but as I pointed out, with the common icon names, that won't
> work any longer.

If you do not see the style in the gnome icons it tells me that you like 
pretty simple icons, which use a strong outline as well as a certain 
predefined set of colors/gradient combinations and line/curve styles. All in 
all, the Tango/Gnome icons are proof that a downstream style can been 
accepted upstream if everything is well defined (jimmac rocks). Honestly, it 
was no small feat and it proves that it *can* work. That in no way means that 
it is right for KDE as a desktop to ignore the fact that is has it's own 
identity and needs to present itself. You may think that it is a matter of 
KDE *wanting* to be different but it is more matter that kde *is* different.

> > There is no such thing as a style-less style. We've had this discussion
> > before as well.
>
> It appears that I did not succeed in explaining the issues to you very
> well since you still focus on a minor point.
>
> The point of that discussion was what the spec said.  The issue with the
> spec has now been fixed.  It now uses the word 'neutral' rather than
> 'un-themed'.  While I think that 'generic' is also a good description,
> there clearly can be neutral/generic style (isn't this the case with
> business clothing?).

Neutral, un-themed, generic, no-style etc. do not exist...it is a myth and 
anyone who has done real artwork would know that. I am sorry to put it that 
way and mean no harm or bad feelings but the truth is the truth.

> We now have the Tango icon theme so there is really no need for a
> HiColor icon theme although I would have rather called it HiColor.  It
> doesn't really matter what the names are as long is there is some way to
> configure where the icon loader looks for icons.  Using "Inherits=" in
> the "index.theme" file for this doesn't work well.  The fact that
> HiColor has been changed from a theme to an empty name space means that
> the fallback to HiColor isn't going to find an icon in many cases.  So,
> we need additional fallback *after* HiColor (not before).  IMHO, this
> needs to be configurable -- fallback before HiColor causes problems.
>
> Note that KDE doesn't not have a current generic or neutral icon theme.
>   That remains an issue.  What it should be called is only a secondary
> issue of little importance although the Icon Loader code could probably
> directly deal with names such as "hicolor.kde" a configuration file can
> address that.

There is no such thing as a generic or neutral theme, as I have already said.

> Time has resolved other issues.  Not as well as if it had been designed,
> but it will work.  There still appears to be a small chance that
> multiple icons with the same name will be installed to 'hicolor'.  Not
> sure if that will happen.

Installing the same icons with the same name into hicolor is crap, I agree. I 
am not sure if we'll ever get around these problems as long as there are 
different desktops...then again, what is the point of open source if we don't 
have different choices?

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