On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 04:48:34PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Maybe it's a silly question, but *why* does fvwm need mandatory > image support at all? Arent's images in a window manager just > gimmicks?
It's not a silly question, but I'd hoped the commit message said enough. Gimmick is a matter of perspective. I'm trying to stike a balance through useability. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume one image library as the de facto; others are still available. I'm trying to frame this in terms of: * Making the default config useable and useful (which from what I'm seeing, does entail some form of image loading (for icons im menus and elsewhere) * Integrating with other third-party applications which generate menus (which use PNG). XPMs are dead. SVGs aren't as supported. PNGs feel like the right thing to support. HTH, Thomas Adam
