Icon naming spec: generic binary MIME type icon?
mclasen at redhat.com
Mon Dec 1 07:59:43 PST 2008
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:48 +0100, Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> On Monday, 1. December 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > Mmh, I don't know about the history around the spec but "good luck getting
> > it in" doesn't sound too encouraging. Contacting this list was the only
> > instruction about feedback to the spec I found - does the "good luck" part
> > imply that I should be contacting someone else about it or be prepared to
> > do something else besides start this discussion?
> Essentially, after the initial creation phase the naming spec maintainer has
> both been pretty restrictive about potential additions and has also stated to
> have very little time to spend on the spec. The combination of these factors
> has led to a de-facto standstill in the naming spec, several people (including
> myself) have found it very hard to get even the most straightforward
> suggestions included - getting anything controversial or less obvious into the
> spec has proven to be near to impossible.
> Maybe the situation has changed over the last few months - I'm not aware of
> any new developments, but in case there are, please disregard this message.
I propose to use the staging area as a way to work around this problem:
More information about the xdg