Icon naming spec: generic binary MIME type icon?
jpetso at gmx.at
Thu Dec 4 01:26:07 PST 2008
On Tuesday 02 December 2008, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> It is maintained. And I am very easily contacted.
You might consider to reply to the original post in this thread.
I believe the lack of feedback about past proposals contributes a major
portion to the (perceived?) maintenance and communication problems.
A short answer to each of the incoming spec proposals might do wonders, e.g.:
* I think that's a good idea, and I'll add it to the spec as soon as I
* I don't think that's a good idea, because (...)
[suggestion is reworked, reposted, and then receives another judgement]
* I have a fundamental issue with this: (...). Such an icon will never go in.
* I can't say much at the moment (requires more research), but I'll look
into it as soon as I find time.
* I'll never find time for *this* crap, f*ck off and bl**dy leave me alone.
You might optionally go into more details, but this kind of feedback is the
least that a contributor can expect from the spec maintainer. Omitting even
this minimal feedback is basically the same as the last option, which is why
the spec appears to be unmaintained even if that's not the whole truth.
More information about the xdg