[kde-artists] New icon names approval: "view-fit-*

[James Richard Tyrer]

Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> On Friday, 13. July 2007, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>> IAC, these view-fit-* icons are for applications that display documents
>> or photos.  For example, a PDF viewer.  Whether an application uses all
>> three depends on the application.  "view-fit-window" & "view-fit-width"
>> are common.  A KDE developer requested the "view-fit-height" to complete
>> the set for his project.
> 
> Ok, so how about having three icons in the spec,
> covering the standard magnifying glass paradigm:
> 
> - zoom-fit-width
> - zoom-fit-height
> - zoom-fit-best
> 
> and make the page icons, which are obviously a special case of the mentioned 
> ones, a more specialized set of icons:
> 
> - zoom-fit-width-page
> - zoom-fit-height-page
> - zoom-fit-best-page
> 
> Those wouldn't need to be added to the spec, they could stay KDE-only as 
> there's a good fallback if the base icons are all in the spec.

Yes, that looks like a good possibility even though the names 
(zoom-fit-*-page) do not appear, at first glance, technically correct -- 
they make sense only when compared to the other names (zoom-fit-*).  So, 
perhaps if they are going to be KDE Only icons, they should be called:

	zoom-fit-width-kde
	zoom-fit-height-kde
	zoom-fit-best-kde

since this would conform to the spec -- a brand is added last in all 
cases although I think that they had something slightly different in 
mind for the meaning of 'brand'.

IAC, this is not an issue for the spec.  If we follow this idea then we 
would be asking only for:

	zoom-fit-width
	zoom-fit-height

and a correction of the name of "zoom-best-fit" to "zoom-fit-best" -- 
there is no "zoom-best-<something>" and an icon named: "zoom-fit" would 
be legal as a fall back.

And, is the height icon isn't thought to be popular, we could drop that 
from the request.

-- 
JRT