Repost: Icon Names Standard
frans.englich at telia.com
Thu Sep 16 23:35:16 EEST 2004
On Sunday 12 September 2004 20:09, Kenneth Wimer wrote:
> * Frans Englich <frans.englich at telia.com> [Sep 12. 2004 15:35]:
> > On Friday 10 September 2004 22:48, you wrote:
> > > * Frans Englich <frans.englich at telia.com> [Sep 11. 2004 00:26]:
> > > > On Friday 10 September 2004 07:22, ????????????????
> > > > ?????????????????? wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Slightly related is "pseudo icons" which I proposed on this list a
> > > > couple of months ago. Food for thought:
> > > >
> > > > http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/xdg/2004-July/004232.html
> > >
> > > I think that this kind of thing undermines the whole point behind the
> > > effort, actually. I think that one should start at the points that are
> > > easily fixable and definable and then work forward. I admit that there
> > > will always be a large difference in the needs between desktops but
> > > some tihngs (many!) can be written down in stone now, so that we can
> > > move forward.
> > The idea of "pseudo icons" is simply the possibility for several icon
> > names to map to one actual icon; instead of duplicating/copying the
> > actual files, a mechanism(of some sort) do the actual mapping so the same
> > icon is loaded.
> > An icon names standard faces the problem of backwards compatability;
> > Applications (in the case of KDE, especially 3rd parties) would need to
> > have their code change to load the right icons when the standard is
> > adopted in the default icon theme. The "pseudo icon" concept would then
> > be used as a compatability layer where requests for old icon names didn't
> > fail, but were "redirected" to the renamed icons. Emigration would be
> > easier, and the standard faster adopted.
> I disagree. Nobody will even know that they are breaking the standard if
> they don't explicitly check and in this case nothing will be changed if
> nobody knows that something is broken. Yes, emigration would be easier
> because nobody would have to emigrate.
That would be to simplify since the same effect would be achieved although
applications wouldn't be broken, but instead depend on the "pseudo icon"
mechanism which would be useful in other cases. But after a second thought I
agree with the policy you suggest, to more explicitly push the standard(and
hence more focus on the Free Desktop platform).
> > I don't see how "pseudo icons" contradict an icon name standard; such one
> > can be written without pseudo icons, and without disturbing "pseudo
> > icons". But, the adoption of such a standard faces practical issues which
> > such a concept could help solving(and hence I threw out the idea).
> This seems like more of a problem of implementation than specification.
> I admit that a "feature rich" environment like KDE is going to need
> something like this.
Nah, I also wrap KDE's features in quotes, but pseudo icons wouldn't be
necessary, because it results in bugs which are itches for people; it's
visually broken and easily fixed. We won't need to fetch sticks to make
developers upgrade their code -- they will scratch the itches.
(and taking this into account, the "pseudo icon" idea is in this context
From KDE's perspective it would be suitable with an extension to the standard
covering basic names inside a reasonable time frame. Then code could be
upgraded for 3.4, and the standard start to propagate, instead of after KDE 4
which would be several years(AFAICT).
I'll probably write a draft if it not turns out to become duplicate work.
More information about the xdg