On Fri, 12.12.08 14:06, Iain * ([email protected]) wrote: > > Come one. First you claim the list of defined names is too large. Then > > you claim it is incomplete. Then you want only a single sound for > > all. Now you want to distuingish the events. Hey, make up your mind! > > Thats not what i've said at all. > Nicely twisted into a meaningless strawman.
Do you want me to compile the list of quotes of your that show that you said exactly the things I mentioned above? Maybe you didn't mean them, but you did *write* them. > I think the list of defined names is too long. > > If you are attempted to define a list of all possible different things > that may have different sounds then the the list is incomplete. That was never the intention of the naming spec. The intention is to provide a good set for the beginning and then to add all sounds people have a valid need for. And we jump started it by looking around us and compiling the list from all the sounds that are currently in use. Which I still think is a good way to handle this, possibly even the only good way. > I was highlighting this to show that it is impossible to define all > possibilties before hand in some spec, not to claim that I want more > sounds. I repeatedly tried to make clear that we are happy to update the list when people want to add or change something, if there is a valid reason. Nobody said the spec would be set in stone and already be "complete" for all eternity. > I want a single meaning for why a sound has happened. Yes, that's why the spec tries to explain in which context a specific sound should be used. > I want a simple answer to the question "should my application make a > sound in this situation?" Uh? > I don't want to distinguish events. I am increasingly getting more confused by what you say and what exactly it is what you want. To me this last sentence and "I want a single meaning for why a sound has happened" appear to be directly contradicting. And I am sorry, I am pretty sure that if you feel misunderstood by everyone it is not just the audience's fault, but simply that you apparently failed to explain properly what you really want. > I want the user to be able to know that when they hear a sound that > there is something that may need their attention. Isn't that the whole point of notification sounds? > > You know, we define 125 sounds. It's up to you which ones you link > > to the same file and which ones you don't define at all. We already > > give you the power to do whatever you want. > > And thats completely NOT what I want and has missed the point. Then enlighten me! > But I see that no-one else cares. So I shall stop caring as well. Apparently Ronald cares. It's difficult for me to care if I don't understand what exactly it is what you want. > And this is my last mail on the subject Aha! Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
