On Monday, 16. July 2007, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > Jakob Petsovits wrote: > > On Monday, 16. July 2007, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > >> 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"? > > Not to sound flippant or dismissive, but... who cares? It's already how > it is, so why make extra work for something that's purely an > implementation detail that end-users won't see anyway?
In order to get it right, I would say. There's only one naming standard, and few projects actively use it yet, so we've got the opportunity to do it right. Imho, the most important goals of a standard should be a) finding common ground for different projects, and b) Doing Stuff Right (TM). A standard that prefers convenience over correctness is not worth a dime, and I'll happily disregard stuff that is done wrong. emblem-symbolic-link might not justify to break with the spec, but I do expect the spec maintainers to strive for the best possible solution, not the most convenient one. > If it's necessary to expand the use of emblem-symbolic-link for other types > of links, this can be noted in the description in the icon naming spec. That would be really ugly. Sorry for the rant, Jakob _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
