Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs
- From: Paolo Borelli <pborelli katamail com>
- To: Jakub Steiner <jimmac ximian com>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:11:00 +0200
Jakub Steiner wrote:
This kind of generalization totally misses my point. I may well agree
that the old icon theme is broken in many ways, I may agree that trying
to remove the cruft is a good idea. I in fact even agree that try to put
in every random mime-type icon is not a good idea and that providing
icons for every mime type is a never ending task.
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.
*However* I also think that some of the mime types icons were very
useful and that both last cycle and this time many people voiced their
concerns about it.
I also pointed out (in the part you snipped) as this removal poses
problem to applications.
Too bad you take this kind of feedback as a personal attack :/
] [Thread Prev