Re: icon naming spec and gnome-vfs

[Paolo Borelli <pborelli katamail com>]

Jakub Steiner wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
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.

*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 :/


ciao
   Paolo