Re: [Nautilus-list] changes to svg icon handling

[Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On 25 Feb 2002, Michael Meeks wrote:

> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 19:04, Alex Larsson wrote:
> > See my other mail about the situation.
> 
> 	Well - I read it, but it just doesn't help me understand why we have a
> nominal and a maximum size in the first place, more interesting is why
> there is such a dramatic variance between the two figures (~ factor of
> 2) and, why the emblem rendering / layout appears to use the maximum
> size instead of the real size to work with. Also it concerns me that we
> still have a magic factor for calculating emblem size which seems highly
> sub-optimal.

The nominal size is the target size of the icon, and it's max size. bitmap 
icons may be smaller than their nominal size though, and they won't 
forcedly scaled up to the nominal size.

I'm not sure about the max size though.

[Note: The max width for the first level of max icon size is 
MAXIMUM_ICON_SIZE * requested_size / NAUTILUS_ZOOM_LEVEL_STANDARD. Which 
gives you an exact factor of 2, but the icons are then later scaled down 
to be no larger than the icon nominal size. Unless i misread the code. ]

The emblem seems to be rendered at 75% of the size of the corresponding 
icons. How is that highly sub-optimal? I agree it's sort of a 
non-obvious place to do this calculation, but it makes sense to have 
emblem size depend on the icon size, does it not? 
 
> 	It was my intention to resolve these, and the proportional text layout
> issue before doing the change, it puterbs me slightly that you went
> ahead and just did the changes.

Sorry about that. I was under the (wrong) impression that top-left text 
didn't work at all, and I wanted to get the SVG performance boost in.

I will look at the top-left text issue tonight.

/ Alex