On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 22:17, Luca Ferretti wrote: > So IMHO could be a good idea use the table prosp for 48x48 icons > (typically used in nautilus) and the shelf for 32x32 to use in > Application menu. That makes little sense. It's application icons. People are familiar with the icons they will have in their panel menu and/or desktop. It makes things harder for us to draw all of them too. > Obviously drawing the icon in a proper way can help. A good example can > be your file cabinet icon (used for file manager) in xd2: it's in front > view, it has a simple shape, so it's good in both sizes and places > (nautilus window and application menu). It's 'on the table' perspective. > > Renaming existing files is very problematic. Although I agree it would > > make things a lot clearer, we'd need at least some symlink magic not to > > break the old apps in the transition time. > > What about simply add them? They should be only 8 or 9. I've a patch on > my $HOME to do it, but someone should apply it and should manage icons. > > Same troubles for many other apps: For example ggv and gpdf: I think we > should add a gnome-[ps|pdf]-viewer.png icon in gnome-icon-theme and > those programs should use is in .deskop file and in wm_icon. > > Same for gnome-image-viewer.png, gnome-text-editor.png and so on. In which case we should make sure to update the .desktop files as soon as we rename files in g-i-t. A lot of time something slipped through my fingers. But on the other hand a temporaryt brokenness in -devel is better than a mess in the end product. I will be posting my idea of structuring the OOo stock icons coming to g-i-t shortly. Hopefully we can have a fruitful discussion on it before being forced to do cvs renames, which are quite a nightmare to me. cheers -- Jakub Steiner <jimmac ximian com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part