On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 04:48:34PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Maybe it's a silly question, but *why* does fvwm need mandatory
> image support at all?  Arent's images in a window manager just
> gimmicks?

It's not a silly question, but I'd hoped the commit message said enough.
Gimmick is a matter of perspective.  I'm trying to stike a balance through
useability.  I don't think it's unreasonable to assume one image library as
the de facto; others are still available.  I'm trying to frame this in terms

* Making the default config useable and useful (which from what I'm seeing,
  does entail some form of image loading (for icons im menus and elsewhere)

* Integrating with other third-party applications which generate menus (which
  use PNG).

XPMs are dead.  SVGs aren't as supported.  PNGs feel like the right thing to

Thomas Adam

Reply via email to