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

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Alex,

On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 21:18, Alex Larsson wrote:
> 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 don't believe that's the case, I think icons are typically larger
than their nominal size as they come off disk, and as long as they are
smaller than the maximum size they are not scaled, if they are scaled
they are scaled to the maximum size ~= 2x the nominal size. It is
certain that pixmaps that are loaded at the nominal size are not scaled
to the maximum size when they are loaded.

> [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. ]

	I think you mis-read it :-)

> The emblem seems to be rendered at 75% of the size of the corresponding 
> icons. How is that highly sub-optimal?

	Well - it's the wrong size for the emblems; this calculation needs
re-adjusting, it doesn't mach the way the pixmaps are handled there is
acute badness here cf:

	http://primates.ximian.com/~michael/bad1.png
&	http://primates.ximian.com/~michael/bad2.png

> 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? 

	Quite possibly, but not to have the emblem so huge ;-) if we use this
factor it needs to be dramatically reduced - but then it's prolly worth
fixing the other emblem rendering bugs first since they may be related
to this issue.

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

	It seems text is still somewhat badly broken, and the svg icons are
still unnaturally small, compared with the pixbuf icons, eg. switch
between UnscaleableGorilla  and Scaleable~ and you'll see the
discrepancy ~ 1/3rd larger or so.

	IMHO a good soln' to this might be to bump up the nominal size to
nearer the maximum size - or conversely to bump down the maximum size to
nearer the nominal size [ and set the default zoom level higher, and
extend the zoom range to > 400% ].

	What do you think ?

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot