Just an idea. How about naming the fallback icons like all-new or generic-new? This seems to resolve the most pressing issues.
-- Evgeny On Tuesday 17 July 2007 00:46:58 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > * Add a "new" icon > > > "The icon for the create action." > > > > > > * Add a "close" icon > > > "The icon for the close action." > > > > What will the metaphor be? How will these icons relate to all formats? > > probably an "x" for close and page-with-star for new or something along > those lines. essentially what we've been using for how many years now for > something meaning 'close' and 'new'. it doesn't need to relate to all > formats perfectly, since that's what the more specific icons are for, no? > > > > * Remove the "document-" prefix > > > from the open, open-recent, save and save-as actions > > > > You're misinterpreting the term document here, to mean "files formatted > > for print that primarily contain text," which is incorrect. All of the > > files a user can view/edit/play/etc... are documents. > > i think jakob answered this in his original email. > > > > * Add an "edit" icon > > > "The icon for the edit action." > > > > What exactly would this be? Why do we need it? All of the icons under > > edit-* are for things that normally appear in the "Edit" menu of an app. > > i think jakob answered this in his original email. > > > > * Rename "system-run" to "run" > > > > I don't see any specific benefit for this. For the icons you mentioned > > this one is debatable, i agree. > > > > Could you help us to achieve both? > > > > The spec was never meant to be an absolute conglomerate of all icons for > > all occasions in all desktops at all times. It is meant to be the base > > minimum set of icons a desktop should require to maintain visual appeal. > > if you read Jakob's email carefully, you'll see that it makes it easier to > provide such a minimum set by defining "new", "edit", etc... as base icons > so that one doesn't get the dreaded ? icon in the case that there isn't a > foo-new icon that is requested, but rather can get the generic new icon > instead when calling new-foo. > > the downside to this is that it is rather late in the spec's history to do > this and would require a number of changes to icon references. a bit of a > pain for apps that are using the current spec and a raises a tough question > about how to manage compatibility between old and new icon themes. > > personally, i think Jakob is quite right here, but i think it comes down to > how widespread the current icon spec is in production use and how much pain > it's going to bring to fix the spec. if it is too much for 1.0, this could > perhaps be put on the bench for v2 of the spec. it would be nice to get > this right sooner rather than later, though. > > > But that doesn't mean that we can change the spec so heavily, for one > > desktop or the other. > > just keep in mind that the more a spec fails to meet the real needs of all > potential users of it, the less useful the spec becomes. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
