Re: On Emblems


read over this post until now, so just a quick, late remark on that.

I don't think that we the name emblem is too bad or that we should be
unhappy with the naming or even change it.

One reason is that it is, at least I think, clear what an emblem is or
at least what it looks like in the context of GNOME/Nautilus.

Also we (at least if I didn't get anything wrong) don't want to provide
a very general API for the composition/decoration of icons but want to
use emblems for the special purposes which are relevant to gio, like the
stuff with the icons for mounts or visualizing metadata. Especially for
the latter the term emblem is not too bad I also because of the usage of
the term for that in nautilus.

Ok, if  GEmblemableIcon is great english, I don't know either ;-).



Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de> wrote:
>> How important is that we keep the term "emblem". I don't like
>> 'GEmblemableIcon' that much. The emblem can be used as a
>> decoration/annotation/tag. So what about
>> - GThemedIcon
>>   +----GIconDecoration:
>> - GInterface
>>   +----GDecoratableIcon:
>> (is 'decoratable' an english word?)
> The term 'emblem' is not very important, and yes, GEmblemedIcon is not
> a very nice name. When initially discussed this api, we spent some time
> trying to come up with a better one, but nothing really convincing came up.
> So GEmblemedIcon stayed. Its just a name, after all...
> --
> nautilus-list mailing list
> nautilus-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]