Some Icon Theme Spec fixes

Rodney Dawes dobey at
Thu Apr 7 20:12:57 EEST 2005

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 06:50 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 09:54 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > Its not exactly the same with XDG_DATA_*, because those are only set
> > manually by the user. No icon set ships installed in an special
> > directory that only the XDG_DATA env vars points to. However, with this
> > change the recommended place for icons is in a location where old apps
> > won't pick it up.
> > 
> You've nicely summarized the reasons why this change is a bad idea.
> We should not do that.

How many apps in reality are going to break though? The risk here seems
very small to me. I don't know of any applications that provide their
own implementation of the spec, rather than going through one that is
provided by the toolkit. I've already done the work to make this work
fully in Gnome. And it doesn't break old themes. New themes may not
necessarily work with old implementations. GTK+ engines have this
same problem, if you want to make new and deprecated widgets look
anything alike for some cases. Saying that a theme requires a newer
implementation of the specification seems fine to me. It's like saying
a certain engine requires a new enough version of GTK+, or how a web
site might not work in a browser that doesn't support CSS. Your browser
only supports HTML 3.0, and not XHTML 4.1 +CSS, so some things may not
render as desired. Frankly, I would much rather us take this stance,
than live with separated, inconsistent structure for themes, and making
it annoying to distributed a complete set of themes as one package. The
benefits seem to far outweigh the potential issues, to me.

-- dobey

More information about the xdg mailing list