jpetso at gmx.at
Mon Jul 16 10:26:30 PDT 2007
On Monday, 16. July 2007, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> > On Monday, 16. July 2007, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> >> Well, hard links can't be distinguished from normal files. They *are*
> >> just normal files. A hard link is simply a directory entry pointing to
> >> a particular inode. When we talk about 'hard linking' we usually mean
> >> that we've created a new link to an existing inode, but, post-link,
> >> there's no way to tell which directory entry was the 'original' and
> >> which is the 'copy'.
> > For that matter, is is necessary at all to have "symbolic" included in
> > the icon name if the only user-visible link type is symbolic links
> > anyhow?
> > Why not change the name to just "emblem-link"?
> Not to sound flippant or dismissive, but... who cares? It's already how
> it is, so why make extra work for something that's purely an
> implementation detail that end-users won't see anyway?
In order to get it right, I would say. There's only one naming standard, and
few projects actively use it yet, so we've got the opportunity to do it
Imho, the most important goals of a standard should be a) finding common
ground for different projects, and b) Doing Stuff Right (TM). A standard that
prefers convenience over correctness is not worth a dime, and I'll happily
disregard stuff that is done wrong. emblem-symbolic-link might not justify to
break with the spec, but I do expect the spec maintainers to strive for the
best possible solution, not the most convenient one.
> If it's necessary to expand the use of emblem-symbolic-link for other types
> of links, this can be noted in the description in the icon naming spec.
That would be really ugly.
Sorry for the rant,
More information about the xdg