Re: Icons of program

[Anders Wegge Jakobsen <wegge wegge dk>]

raster@redhat.com writes:

> On 18 Apr, Anders Wegge Jakobsen shouted:
> ->  Dwight Hubbard <dlhubbar@collins.rockwell.com> writes:
> ->  
> ->  > >
> ->  > > filename
> ->  > > filename.info
> ->  > >
> ->  > 
> ->  > I was thinking the same thing yesterday.  It's simple to implement
> ->  > and the Amiga showed that the concept worked fairly well.  What
> ->  > would be nice would be to use the same format as the Amiga since
> ->  > that would provide us with a large working set of freely available
> ->  > icons to work with.
> ->  
> ->   I'd give that idea a bit of thought, before following it. The concept
> ->  is sound in itself, but the implementation lacks in several
> ->  places. The biggest flaw is the non-existant handling of different
> ->  palettes and/or color depths of the icons. Furthermore, the
> ->  manipulation of such images would require a specialized tool.
> 
> yes.. that was a problem.. it coudl be easily fixed by having icons
> 24bpp :) create a new format. info was good for amigas.. but not for
> gnome. it's a good concept tho whcih shoudl at least be considered when
> coming up with a new format.

 24 bpp migth be a little excessive in most cases :-) 

> ->   It would probably be better to provide a tool to convert from .info
> ->  to xpm or somesuch, and base further work on that.
> 
> no. xpm cannot contain all the extra information that an inof file did
> (ie 2 images ofr an icon (selected, unslected) if no second image, the
> highlight method, and other parameterd foir the comamnd when ti is
> executed, comments etc.

 Well, in that case, replace "somesuch" with a format consisting of 2
xpm images together with the extra information.

/Wegge