On Tue, 13 May 2003 18:29:57 -0400 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David B Harris wrote: > > (Note that I'm subscribed to the list, no need to mail me > > personally.) > > > > On Tue, 13 May 2003 15:58:49 -0500 > > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 04:30:10PM -0400, David B Harris wrote: > > > > Instead of adjusting this to "48x48" to match current common > > > > practise, upping it to 128x128 will give us a bit more leeway. > > > > > > Why not just use SVG and eliminate the whole problem? > > > > Reality :) But "128x128 or SVG" is fine. > > Tried scaling a 128x128 bitmapped icon to 32x32 lately? Ugh.
Not lately, but I used to regularly - what's so bad about it?
pgp1J43oY00KK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
