On Friday 27 April 2007 21:58:27 Kenneth Wimer wrote: > On Friday 27 April 2007 21:39:48 James Richard Tyrer wrote: > > Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > > On 4/27/07, James Richard Tyrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> As I see it, the problem is that we don't have a proper set of > > >> HiColor icons. Someone moved all the existing HiColor icons to > > >> KDEClassic and for some reason all new HiColor icons were removed. > > >> Then some HiColor icons were renamed CrystalSVG and some > > >> CrystalSVG icons were renamed HiColor. Now GNOME seems to have > > >> emulated us and removed their HiColor icons as well. To me this is > > >> a real mess. > > > > > > Why is this bad? Apps drop their default icons to hicolor so these > > > are picked up regardless of the theme in use. > > > > HiColor is not "default", it is fallback. > > Semantics > > > > Why should any theme put its icons there? If a theme is complete, no > > > icons will ever need to be searched for in hicolor. If it is not > > > complete, it should provide its own list of parent themes (e.g. > > > "based on CrystalSVG") and the missing icons should be picked from > > > the parent theme, so again, no need to search hicolor. > > > > While I half agree with you, the point here is the standard: > > Again, semantics... > > > http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.h > >tm l
Sorry for saying this was a case of misunderstanding, it is not...as you mentioned in this link the spec says: ' In order to have a place for third party applications to install their icons there should always exist a theme called "hicolor" ' I am not sure how you interpret this to mean that hicolor should be a full icon theme on it's own. Ken _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
