Re: Less antiquated format for animations

On 2/8/06, Rodney Dawes <dobey novell com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 15:33 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > That spec is a one-man show, I assume then ?
> The Icon Naming Spec? Or the APNG spec? I don't know much aobut the APNG
> spec really. It was brought up in #tango a week or so ago, when we were
> discussing animations and how to deal with them. As for the Icon Naming
> Spec, no. I did all of the editing/writing work for the spec, and a
> large part of the actual naming, but spent quite a lot of time
> discussing with Jakub and Tuomas initially. Of course, I never really
> got much feedback on it, via the xdg list and such, initially, either.
> But once we started working on Tango internally before announcing the
> project and releasing it, I started pushing forward harder with the
> spec, so that we can actually get something done about the problem. It
> may be hard to get people to give feedback on a proposal initially, but
> once they are forced to give feedback, things go much more smoothly. :)

Sorry, I don't follow #tango. The most appropriate forum to discuss a spec
which is hosted on and claims to be an extension of
the icon theme spec is still xdg-list, in my opinion.

And adding animations to icon themes certainly goes beyond simply
agreeing on a set of names for icons, so I definitively think it should be
discussed on xdg-list, a discussion between dobey, jimmac and tuomas
on #tango does not cut it. You can consider this to be forced feedback,
if you want.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]