Icon theme spec & inheritance

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:15:11PM -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 17:35 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > - application menu icons
> >   - consensus seems to be that every application *has* to ship a hicolor
> >     icon.
> 
> When did that consensus come about? 
>
uhm. nobody except JRT screamed against it, maybe? dunno. :)

> Any application that just
> uses an icon from Table 2: Standard Application Icons in
> 
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-naming-spec/icon-naming-spec-latest.html
> 
> should not be required to ship its own icon.  In fact, they should
> not ship their own version.
>
we can simply define those applications to be be components and then the
problem is gone. :)

> > - private application icons
> >   - to be able to theme the app's private icons, the app needs to look
> >     for icons from the configured theme(s) in some standard locations,
> >     like share/icons/<theme>/apps/<app> or whatever - some ideas were
> >     brought up in the discussion a year ago.
> 
> My recollection is that developers should not install these
> anywhere under share/themes.  The recommended place for them
> is under share/<app>/icons/<theme>.  Since these icons only
> ever need to be loaded inside your application, it's sufficient
> to add this directory to the icon search path within your code.
> 
this is a nightmare for assembling and installing those themes ...

> > imo, the complete search order of icons should be configurable through
> > the theme choice xsetting. [...]
> 
> Can't we just get it right?  I don't want to see this in
> our desktop preferences dialogs:
> 
>     Icon lookup search order:
>       (*) Forward
>       ( ) Reverse
>       ( ) WTF?!
> 
haha. re-read the original proposal and think why this attack doesn't
make any senese.

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.