Re: Icons of program

[Dwight Hubbard <dlhubbar collins rockwell com>]

Andreas Kostyrka wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 raster@redhat.com wrote:
>
> > On 19 Apr, Tony 'Merc' Mobily shouted:
> > ee will build this tree as it goes around creating thumbnails... all

> > transparently.. :) it still makessense to have an icon format..a nd
> I wouldn't call it a icon format only. Make it more like the resource
fork
> of the file. (How it is implemented in the FS doesn't actually matter,

> that's a question of the implementation.)
>
> The Mac in this case get's it (at least in the UI) department right.
>
> Consider: Every file has a data and a resource fork, for example
> datafile           data fork
> .datafile          resource fork
>

Rename your resource fork as filename.info and you essentially have and
Amiga
.info file.  It might be better to name it .uid.info for a multiuser
environment though.   I still think this is the best solution,
centralized
solutions be they registries or centralized directories tend to loose
all the
information if they get corrupted instead of just loosing one programs
icons/resources such as would happen with an .info file or a Mac
resource
fork.  It also has the benifit of having both the program and it's icon
resources in the same place which makes them easier to move with current

tools.  I.E. "mv /footerm* /mnt/floppy" will copy footerm and it's icon
to
the floppy.

[snip]