Re: On disk theme format for icons?

[<bordoley msu edu>]

Rodney Dawes <dobey free fr> said:

> There is no reason it could not be changed. It is a very minor change,
> and would make it fit in more with the rest of the desktop. The point
> here is to make things as extensible as possible, future-wise. GNOME 2.2
> is not yet a final release. It is only frozen, and this change would not
> affect any of those changes afaict. I also would not forsee any problems
> with KDE either. I don't think we can call it a standard yet either, as
> it is proposed and not yet in wide use. We should solve these problems
> before it is put into extended wideband use, it will make things much
> smoother down the road. I'll also point out yet again that my original
> mail was sent out in *August*. And it was ignored, because you and a
> bunch of other people wanted a quick implementation of metatheme, rather
> than a spec for metathemes. Oh well. *sigh*
> 


That is complete crap becaue this idea is:

a) not original
b) was brought up by me and others as well a few months earlier

see the following:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86645
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88448
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2002-June/msg00607.html

If you are serious about getting the icons directory changed to match the gtk 
style, you should probably be emailing the xdg-list to try to get the spec 
changed. However, I fear that since KDE has effectively been using this spec 
forever, that they would be a little weary about changing, but who knows.

dave