On Mër , 2004-06-02 at 10:55 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 09:03, Christian Neumair wrote: > > + gtk_container_set_border_width (GTK_CONTAINER (emfs->inner_vbox), 5); > > where the heck did 5 come from? The broken defaults in GtkDialog lead people to believe that this is the right way to work around those style properties. > *sigh* the more HIG patches I read the more fucked I see that the HIG > really is. None of the HIG code is consistently implemented in any of > the patches and the padding is way too large. With the bloody HIG, even > 1024x768 is becoming too damn small. Every HIG patch that I have committed has the bits that are in code implemented the same, and I've tried to fix all the glade files to have similar layout in the widget trees. So, I don't know what you mean by saying that none of the code is consistently implemented in these patches. > and when finally Gtk3 is released, we'll have to go back through ALL the > code and re-HIGify it. Doesn't anyone else see how totally FUCKED this > is?!?!?!?!?!? When GTK 3.x is finally released, it won't really matter because the API and ABI are going to break. We're going to have to change all kinds of code anyway. Hopefully by GTK+ 3.x, there will be more room for specifying a policy for widget spacing within the toolkit itself. There is nothing fucked about having policy be separate from implementation, aside from the fact that this particular policy is just overly difficult to understand and get right. > argh! this HIG crap is just frustrating the hell out of me. > > anyways, don't mean to be taking this out on you. Take your frustrations with the HIG out on usability gnome org That is where discussion of HIG policy belongs. If you have problems with the spacing, then bring it up there. -- dobey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part