Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs

[Pat Suwalski <pat suwalski net>]

Jakub Steiner wrote:
> I don't know how much time exactly went into gnome icon theme over the
> years, but I do feel like we failed to provide a good icon theming
> platform for distributions. Back then we had old Gnome 1.0 styled icons
> inconsistency. Then I tried to create an icon for every single random
> mimetype people requested. Yes we had all the various CD media icons.
> But there's less artists than there are free software hackers, and there
> isn't too many of those either. Ad-hoc naming, missing sizes and thus
> blurry icons for small sizes and a general mess was the result. 

In my opinion, while 1.x was horribly inconsistent with icons, you guys 
did an amazing job for the early 2.x days, which had a good balance of 
icons.

> So yea, a specific tiff icon would be nice, but does it have to come
> now? Does it have to be in the core icon theme? Before we make sure all
> icons are named properly, have all the sizes provided, include the
> artwork "source" I don't think we should worry about those yet. I'm
> talking about the filetypes now, I'm going a bit soft on the device
> icons now.. :)

In my opinion, yes, it has to come now, or it will never come. It is 
already a regression that it was there and is no longer there. I prefer 
the look of my 2.8 desktop with icons that were "consistent enough" to 
my 2.12 desktop where I've lost information that was presented to me 
before. I agree that the old way was not maintainable.

--Pat