On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 09:14 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 12:35 +0200, Jakob Petsovits wrote: > > > > As long as providing such a [base]+[emblem] icon is always optional for the > > icon theme, this might work out nicely. I think the language in your patch > > is > > not optimal yet, it should emphasize that this is mainly a feature for > > themers to provide tuned versions instead of the standard overlay mechanism. > > Sure, thats the intention. I can rework the language to make that > clearer.
How is using a + any different from a - in this situation? Shouldn't we provide the icon, and the emblem (in their appropriate contexts), and the implementation then do what it needs with them? Why wouldn't the implementation just load the icon and the emblem, and overlay them in code? We already do this in nautilus for numerous file properties anyway. Perhaps now would be a good time to implement some sort of "emblem" API in the icon theme implementation, and update the Icon Theme spec to clarify the "Emblems" context a bit. In the GIcon/GtkIconTheme case, it might be a good idea to add some sort of "list" of emblems for the icon. This way the emblem could be loaded and composited automatically in the right place. -- Rodney _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
