Vishnoo a écrit : > On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:18 +0100, François Degrave wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:04 +0100, François Degrave wrote: >> >>>> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 07:38:23 am Merk wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I'm not asking why the OS X was directly copied instead of either Windows >>>>>> one. I'm asking why any existing Word icon was copied at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It is a mimetype and as such needs to visually represent a certain type >>>>> of >>>>> file. It goes without saying that when everyone associates a certain >>>>> look/letter/number with something they don't search for other visual >>>>> metaphors. People expect certain things to look certain ways ;) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ken >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Ok but it feels uncomfortable >>>> >>>> >>> Thats really awesome. :) >>> >>> Then using those files types should be reduced rather than complaining >>> about the icon ;) >>> >>> >> Those filetypes are supported by OOo. No need to associate them to icons >> referencing to Ms applications not supported under Linux. >> > > The icon is used only when someone is saving the file to be MS office > complaint. > Why cant we stop using that format , rather than nit-pick over what one > has just chosen to continue to support? > > >> As far as I >> know, there is no reference to Adobe in the pdf files icons. >> >> > > I'd suggest you check again ;) > Ok well, you are right. And that is basically... lame. Evince is the default PDF reader, why should the icon be related to Adobe? Even under MacOSX the pdf files icons have no reference to the Adobe brand, this is a non-sense. Why not give a Quicktime icon to .mov files in that case? And even a IE icon to every HTML file? It is simply stupid.
-- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
