On Monday, 16. July 2007, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > James Richard Tyrer wrote: > > This: "emblem-symbolic-link" appears to be another issue. > > > > I think that this should be: > > > > emblem-link-symbolic > > > > or it could be: > > > > emblem-symbolic_link > > > > but there is no way that "link" is a member of "symbolic". OTOH, there > > are multiple types of "link". IIUC, Linux has 'symbolic' and 'hard' > > links. > > Well, hard links can't be distinguished from normal files. They *are* > just normal files. A hard link is simply a directory entry pointing to > a particular inode. When we talk about 'hard linking' we usually mean > that we've created a new link to an existing inode, but, post-link, > there's no way to tell which directory entry was the 'original' and > which is the 'copy'.
For that matter, is is necessary at all to have "symbolic" included in the icon name if the only user-visible link type is symbolic links anyhow? Why not change the name to just "emblem-link"? _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
