Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs

[Jakub Steiner <jimmac novell com>]

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 16:07 +0200, Paolo Borelli wrote:

> This doesn't change the fact that you are unilaterally removing a 
> feature that many people find useful to get their work done: I find very 
> valuable being able to distinguish at a glance different kind of files 
> in a project (c, python and Makefiles for instance). Other people voiced 
> similar concerns in their field of competence (different kind of 
> graphics formats, different audio formats etc)

Like I said, if I agreed with you on the priorities, I'd be focusing on
providing scalables and small sized icons for all the icons gnome icon
theme included, plus all the new device and type icons. And I would have
tried until I died and we still had an unpolished desktop. 

If what you're saying is "removing any single icon from gnome icon theme
is a regression", then I'm in disagreement. What's in gnome icon theme
is essentially what we have randomly put in. And I am personally
responsible for this.

It is hard to define what sort of file types are more important for our
desktop without having a specific audience defined. Is it more important
to have distinct icons for patches, python and perls scripts? Or
flac/mp3s? Or impress/powerpoint slides? We will evetually get to these
decisions. But focusing on what _everybody_ needs _first_ doesn't sound
like a bad idea in my POV. But of course that's hard to 'sell' to
somebody who doesn't think the icon theme in 2.14 is broken. Aminig to
have the same coverage as git in 2.16 is the wrong goal.

cheers

-- 
Jakub Steiner <jimmac ximian com>