Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice Icon Naming

On 02/11/10 07:19, Andrew wrote:
> On 01/11/10 20:31, Andrew C. E. Dent wrote:
> > Hi Andrew
> >
> > I'm another Andrew who also cares about Icons! (Normally people refer to
> > me by my User name of 'ace_dent').
> > I first started to analyse the problem about 5yrs ago(!) but gave in
> > under the original Sun ownership.
> > I have started the bare seeds of this over on the wiki:
> > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Icon_Themes
> >
> > I'm first trying to move the work I did in an earlier audit of all the
> > icons into the wiki, to move things forward. See here:
> > http://people.bath.ac.uk/ea2aced/OOo/OOoIconCat.odt
> >
> > - Please jump in and get involved!
> >
> > I agreed with your points, however, I would like to split out large /
> > small icons into two different zip archives. There is some performance
> > reasons for doing this, and makes naming conventions easier, but I think
> > I need some input from coding gurus...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreOffice mailing list
> > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>
> Hi Other Andrew :)
>
> Wow you seem to have done a lot of great work on this! However I see a
> few issues:
>
> Your proposed scheme would see icons categorised by components. Whilst I
> see you have the zero category for shared icons, I can see many problems
> with this in the future, where icons become duplicated, not in the
> correct categories. It also make it much harder for an artist, whereas
> in the extended tango spec which I have proposed an artist could easily
> find an icon by its context (i.e. action) in your one, they would have
> to go by component which may not always be obvious.
>
> I also think having the size in the filename is not a great idea as you
> will end up with VERY large directories where icons are not easily seen.
> Putting sizes into folder solves this problem.
>
> The Tango Icon Naming Spec has seen widespread adoption and has seen to
> work and so I (and kendy) believed it was the best way to go forward. It
> also makes things easier for icon authors coming from a GTK icon theme
> as most of the icon names will be the same.
>
> Please don't get me wrong, the work that you have done will be
> invaluable when it comes wrong to implementing it :) However I don't
> believe that your spec is necessarily the best way forward.
>
>
> Any comments?

However now that I look at it, on that Wiki page, the proposed spec is
for an extended Tango Spec, which structure is it that you wish to go
forward with? :)

-- 
Andrew