Hi MIchael,<br>Yes, indeed the 'crazy' size has always been 256x256. I wouldn't be installing SVGs though as you need quite a bit of detail, usually use a few filters and generally will require a lot of CPU time to render. I would bet my money on PNG.<br>
<br>cheers<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Michael Meeks <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael.meeks@suse.com">michael.meeks@suse.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi guys,<br>
<br>
It seems that the GNOME guys really prefer a 256x256 icon size and we<br>
currently only ship a set of 128x128 icons, which makes us look less<br>
pretty than we should be (any chance of a screenshot Vincent?)<br>
<br>
My personal feeling is that at 256x256 just installing the svg icon<br>
would be rather preferable, to allow future scaling. Do we have<br>
easy-to-grok collect, split svgs of each of the icons ? Jimmac - the<br>
rumour is that you prefer raw pixel 256x256 icons - is that really so ?<br>
is each of the 65k pixels hand-tweaked at that resolution ? :-)<br>
<br>
Anyhow - thoughts much appreciated,<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Michael.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
<a href="mailto:michael.meeks@suse.com">michael.meeks@suse.com</a> <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Jakub Steiner <<a href="mailto:jimmac@gmail.com">jimmac@gmail.com</a>><br><a href="http://jimmac.musichall.cz">http://jimmac.musichall.cz</a><br>