On 9/26/07, Bill Allombert wrote: > Well but that does not make space in the icon field "incorrect".
In principle you are right so I should have chosen a better title but in practice an icon field with a space is treated as ill-formed and ignored by both GNOME and KDE. > Beside the Icon field is not specified to be a filename in that case. No, it isn't but icon fields have always contained either a fully specified file name with or without a full path (as in /usr/share/pixmaps/myicon.png or just myicon.png) or a file name without the file type extension (as in myicon). > What is the exact failure condition ? Say you want to create an icon for debian-applications-data-management.directory, whose icon field says: Icon=debian-applications-data management No matter what file name you use, no icon will be displayed in either GNOME or KDE. I have experimented with: "debian-applications-data management.png" "debian-applications-data.png" (gambling that the space is interpreted as end of file name) "management.png" > I do not mind working around this issue, but I do not want GNOME > bugs to be ascribed to menu-xdg. Thanks a lot. It is not always obvious where to ascribe a bug. It depends on many factors, including how much you stick to specifications, which will necessarily be always incomplete, and how much you stick to old adages like do not use spaces where you can avoid them. I would not be very much surprised if GNOME or KDE people blamed the spaces, not their own inability to handle icon fields with spaces between alphanumeric characters. Cheers, Ariszló
