[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNUstep Icons and look proposal

From: Quentin Mathé
Subject: Re: GNUstep Icons and look proposal
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:54:40 +0200

Le 21 août 04, à 17:16, M. Uli Kusterer a écrit :

In article <address@hidden>,
 Nicolas Roard <address@hidden> wrote:

But if, for theses icons the application developer want to do them, it
provide them directly to the system.

Standard icons are not a fallback, they are expected to be used by the
But IconKit could automatically create icons, and  theses  are a
fallback for the
programmer, as he could possibly provide its own.

 Maybe we should come up with some terminology to make sure everyone
knows what others are talking about: There are "standard icons" (your
term), which are the ones IconKit provides and which should always be
used unmodified. Then there are "fallback icons", which are the ones
IconKit provides if the developer doesn't provide its own, and which are
usually composited based on generic icons and application icons.

 And when talking about all icons you can get out of IconKit, no matter
whether they're standard or fallback, one would just talk about "IconKit

 Oh, and then there'd be "override icons", which are icons provided by
the developer to replace a fallback icon. I.e. if GNUMail provides an
icon for its .mbox files, that's an override icon, while if GNUMail just
lets IconKit generate an icon, that would be a fallback icon.

 Does that help for future conversations?

May be we should reuse this terminology to make the things clearer… not sure though, separate stock icons by categories could be sufficient.


Quentin Mathé

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]