Multiple DeskTops, HiColor theme, standardized icon names, & menu icons
dobey at novell.com
Thu Jun 29 19:30:29 EEST 2006
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 17:39 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 17:16 schrieb Rodney Dawes:
> > On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 17:09 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 16:42 schrieb Rodney Dawes:
> > > > Then why do we have a specification that says where to put icons at
> > > > all? Why isn't this all just part of the loader documentation?
> > >
> > > Because we expect all desktops to show menus and mimetype icons
> > > and for those the provided icons have to be in places where _everyone_
> > > looks. I would call them public icons. For private icons there is no such
> > > need IMO.
> > You (like everyone else seems to be doing) are confusing the term
> > private, with static. For static icons in an app, of course there is no
> > need. Those icons are static and part of the application's data section
> > in the binary, or in a private directory with hardcoded paths. But for
> > an application that wishes to have themable icons, this is not feasible.
> > If one is to run Evolution under KDE for example, do you expect
> > Evolution to not have any of its icons available? Wouldn't you want the
> > icons to perhaps be in the same style as the icon theme you're using at
> > the time, when you run it?
> So your interest to make it possible for icon theme authors to provide themed
> evolution icons? That would make sense to me, but that wasn't said yet.
> Because KDE in itself doesn't care what evolution does with its icons.
No. My interest is to make it possibly to sanely theme app-specific
icons for any application. And yes, I /have/ stated this several times.
But it seems nobody wants to actually read that bit of the thread. They
want to just jump into the middle of the thread and claim it can't be
done because it'll need KDE developers to actually do a little tiny bit
of work, or that all the discussion is totally moot.
And, quite frankly, I'm tired of it. If you have actually read the
entire thread, and are confused about some bit of it, then you should be
asking questions about those bits, not jumping in and claiming
everything discussed is all wrong and/or moot. It's disrespectful, and
doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's just a waste. If that's all
anyone else has to say in this thread, that the entire discussion is
pointless/moot or that it's not doable because they don't want to make a
line or two of changes to code to make it work, then I respectfully
suggest those people not even bother posting, and just go on about their
business. It's upsetting the thread, and it's a waste of everyone's
More information about the xdg