Re: Moving towards actually using icon-naming-spec names

["Matthias Clasen" <matthias clasen gmail com>]

On 2/12/07, Rodney Dawes <dobey novell com> wrote:

> Reality follows this fine. The names were based on existing
> implementations, and the goal of separating system and user preferences.
> Trying to differentiate them by using synonyms doesn't make sense. In
> the end "preferences" and "settings" mean the same thing to the user. In
> GNOME the distinction that is attempted, is that of requiring root or
> not, which from a usability perspective, is a horrible distinction to
> try and make.

You didn't address my point that gnome-menus is using preferences-desktop
and preferences-system for something else.

> > > > documentation
> > >
> > > Where does "documentation" appear in the menu system at all? And what,
> > > if anything, appears under it? We already have "Help" on the menu, and
> > > it gets the "help-browser" icon.
> >
> > We have a Documentation submenu below Preferences and Administration
> > in RHEL. It shows, well, documentation.
>
> RHEL != { GNOME, KDE }. We have a documentation browsing system already.
> Both desktops have documentation systems already. And they are both
> opened via the "Help" item in the main menu. The spec is based on that
> fact. If RHEL is going to add custom menus to their menu system, then
> the can try to come up with icons in their own themes to satisfy their
> needs. The spec is not meant to provide icons for RHEL, SUSE, Gentoo, or
> whatever other favorite distribution anyone wants icons for.

Well, it is not as if there was no Documentation category in the menu spec...