eben wrote:
> Do you think that making sugar-iconify a standard (and strongly
> recommended) step in creating proper sugar icons is a bad idea? What
> are your experiences actually using it so far?
i think such a script is an excellent addition. as the OP of this
thread, it would have helped me quite a bit.
a few things, based on my experience writing my own (inferior)
script the other day, and on using yours just now:
- as "cluttery" as it feels, i think the script should create
a backup ("icon.svg~") of the original, by default, if
it's going to overwrite the original. there could be an
option to suppress this.
- a "guess" behavior would be useful: rather than demanding the
hex values for fill and stroke, the script could figure these
out for itself, and either just go ahead, or confirm with the
user first. this would also give an opportunity to warn
if there are more than two values used for fill or stroke. (is
this ever appropriate?)
- does the script do anything at all with no options? i did this
first, forgetting i probably needed -f and -s, and i then wasn't
sure if anything had happened. if it nees options, then it should
give usage() with none.
many thanks for doing this...
paul
=---------------------
paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's 32.5 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Sugar mailing list
Sugar@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
