On 02/11/10 07:19, Andrew wrote: > On 01/11/10 20:31, Andrew C. E. Dent wrote: >> Hi Andrew >> >> I'm another Andrew who also cares about Icons! (Normally people refer to >> me by my User name of 'ace_dent'). >> I first started to analyse the problem about 5yrs ago(!) but gave in >> under the original Sun ownership. >> I have started the bare seeds of this over on the wiki: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Icon_Themes >> >> I'm first trying to move the work I did in an earlier audit of all the >> icons into the wiki, to move things forward. See here: >> http://people.bath.ac.uk/ea2aced/OOo/OOoIconCat.odt >> >> - Please jump in and get involved! >> >> I agreed with your points, however, I would like to split out large / >> small icons into two different zip archives. There is some performance >> reasons for doing this, and makes naming conventions easier, but I think >> I need some input from coding gurus... >> >> Cheers, >> Andrew >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LibreOffice mailing list >> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > > Hi Other Andrew :) > > Wow you seem to have done a lot of great work on this! However I see a > few issues: > > Your proposed scheme would see icons categorised by components. Whilst I > see you have the zero category for shared icons, I can see many problems > with this in the future, where icons become duplicated, not in the > correct categories. It also make it much harder for an artist, whereas > in the extended tango spec which I have proposed an artist could easily > find an icon by its context (i.e. action) in your one, they would have > to go by component which may not always be obvious. > > I also think having the size in the filename is not a great idea as you > will end up with VERY large directories where icons are not easily seen. > Putting sizes into folder solves this problem. > > The Tango Icon Naming Spec has seen widespread adoption and has seen to > work and so I (and kendy) believed it was the best way to go forward. It > also makes things easier for icon authors coming from a GTK icon theme > as most of the icon names will be the same. > > Please don't get me wrong, the work that you have done will be > invaluable when it comes wrong to implementing it :) However I don't > believe that your spec is necessarily the best way forward. > > > Any comments?
However now that I look at it, on that Wiki page, the proposed spec is for an extended Tango Spec, which structure is it that you wish to go forward with? :) -- Andrew _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
