Desktop entry Icons: filename extensions?
Alexander Larsson
alexl at redhat.com
Wed Aug 18 11:06:40 EEST 2004
On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 16:46, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 10:15, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 00:45, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> [...]
> > > I assume that the filename extension should be included in the value of
> > > the .desktop file's Icon key. Correct? If so (or if not), perhaps this
> > > could be clarified in some of the specs?
> >
> > If you're using icon themed icons you should not give the extension. Its
> > likely that another theme could use another file format for your icon
> > (say .svg instead of .png).
>
> Let's say I have written an app and wish to include a freedesktop.org
> compatible .desktop file for launching it in the distribution tarball +
> one PNG icon for it. I have of course no idea whether the people
> installing this app have themed icons or not. What would you recommend,
> should I include Icon in the .desktop entry with or without ".png"?
I think without the suffix makes more sense.
> What about when packaging software for eg. Fedora Core 2 (or 3), should
> one include the extension or not? Some stats: on my FC2 box, there are
> 95 .desktop entry files in /usr/share/applications which have the Icon
> key. Of those, only 8 do not have an extension in the Icon value. Yet
> I have the impression that icon theming works (not really verified right
> now; oh, and I use KDE).
In practice, both current desktops strip any existing suffix before
applying the icon themeing machinery.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl at redhat.com alla at lysator.liu.se
He's a scrappy moralistic master criminal who must take medication to keep him
sane. She's a brilliant French-Canadian nun with an MBA from Harvard. They
fight crime!
More information about the xdg
mailing list