[kde-artists] Icon Naming: animations/process-working, & animations/process-idle

Rodney Dawes dobey.pwns at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 08:23:55 PDT 2007

On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 07:57 -0700, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > Everything in Tango isn't in the spec, and isn't meant to go in the 
> > spec.
> The Tango group might not agree with that, but anyway.  It certainly is
> starting to look like this isn't going to be simple.

"The Tango group might not agree with it?" Who exactly? Nobody has said
anything to me. And I'm the maintainer. If the group didn't agree with
it, then process-idle wouldn't even be in the icon theme.

> > The process-idle icon is there so we can support the current spinner
> > implementations in GNOME. They expect the idle image to be separate
> > from the animation image.
> Yes, that also appears to be the way that Firefox works.  It also seems
> to be how the Oxygen icon developer wants to do it.

Why? It seems rather pointless to duplicate a single frame as another
image. Firefox doesn't use icon themes, so however it implements themes
doesn't affect us.

> > The spec calls for the idle image to be the first frame of the
> > animation.
> Unfortunately, KDE doesn't fit with either of these.  That is, KDE
> doesn't have an idle image.  It cycles through all of the images in the
> PNG.  So, we are going to have to change something in the code either
> way. :-(  However, I think that it would be easiest to conform to the
> current GNOME system with a separate icon for idle since this would make
> the: "process-working" icon the same as our current icon, and we
> wouldn't have to use the "process-idle" icon.

Uh. KDE fits perfectly with the specification's way of doing it,
already. It doesn't have a separate idle image. Fixing the behavior in
GNOME is a simple matter of a few fairly simple patches, as there are
multiple spinner widgets in use. Nautilus and Epiphany are the ones that
stand out in my mind right now, but there may be others as well. As far
as KDE is concerned, I don't know what the code looks like exactly, but
as I was looking through the images to see how it works, I found just
the one multi-frame PNG image for the animation.

I really don't understand why you would suggest making the
implementation mimic the current GNOME code, and then state you wouldn't
need the process-idle icon. That's highly contradictory. If you don't
want to show anything for the idle state, then KDE needs to do nothing,
except to use "process-working" rather than the current icon name, as
you claim KDE is already showing no image for idle state.

-- dobey

More information about the xdg mailing list