Re: GNUstep Icons and look proposal

[Quentin Mathé]

Le 21 août 04, à 17:16, M. Uli Kusterer a écrit :

> In article <mailman.2197.1093099966.2011.discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>,
>  Nicolas Roard <nicolas@roard.com> wrote:
>
> > But if, for theses icons the application developer want to do them, it
> > could
> > provide them directly to the system.
> >
> > Standard icons are not a fallback, they are expected to be used by the
> > programmer.
> > But IconKit could automatically create icons, and  theses  are a
> > fallback for the
> > programmer, as he could possibly provide its own.
>
>  Maybe we should come up with some terminology to make sure everyone
> knows what others are talking about: There are "standard icons" (your
> term), which are the ones IconKit provides and which should always be
> used unmodified. Then there are "fallback icons", which are the ones
> IconKit provides if the developer doesn't provide its own, and which 
> are
> usually composited based on generic icons and application icons.
>
>  And when talking about all icons you can get out of IconKit, no matter
> whether they're standard or fallback, one would just talk about 
> "IconKit
> icons".
>
>  Oh, and then there'd be "override icons", which are icons provided by
> the developer to replace a fallback icon. I.e. if GNUMail provides an
> icon for its .mbox files, that's an override icon, while if GNUMail 
> just
> lets IconKit generate an icon, that would be a fallback icon.
>
>  Does that help for future conversations?

May be we should reuse this terminology to make the things clearer… not 
sure though, separate stock icons by categories could be sufficient.

Quentin.

--
Quentin Mathé
qmathe@club-internet.fr