> Having those icons for all 56 document types needs about 6.5MB just > for document icons – in my eyes that's a bit much (does anyone but > Bjorn and me care about MacVim.app size?)
I also think keeping the bundle size down is a good idea. I don't think a few MB hurt, though, say 2-3 MB. I'd say 5 MB or over is probably getting a bit excessive, though. I have absolutely no basis for those numbers, they're just kinda how I feel about it. At any rate, I think bundle size is a good reason to have a generic icon. But after the bundle size has been considered in the choice to have a generic icon, which icons to make generic should be dictated by usage patterns and not be size-driven. > So, here's a proposed icon distribution: > > * Hi-Res (512, 128, 32, 16): For the generic document icon and for the > document icon for vim files. (2 icons) > > * Low-Res (128, 32, 16) for: txt, tex, h, c, m, mm, c++, java, html, > xml, javascript, perl, python, php, ruby, css, haskell, ps, erlang, > lisp, scheme, yaml, plist (23 icons) > > * Generic icon: fortran, sh, diff, flash, asp, bib, c#, csv, tsv, cgi, > dtd, dylan, fscript, ini, io, prop, log, wiki, sql, tcl, vcard, > vbasic, ics, jsp, log, xsl (26 filetypes) I guess it makes sense for predominantly Microsoft/Windows filetypes to have generic icons, and 'support' filetypes like xsl, but I would've thought things like sql, tcl, diff/patch, log, sh, fortran, jsp warranted real icons. I question whether ps is really a filetype that deserves one as they are pretty rarely edited as text files. I would've though plist is borderline, too; the proper editor is surely more appropriate for those than a text editor? Cheers, Ben. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_mac" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
