Ok, I know this was touched on before..

[hugh d fegely]

So there is no default location for these files, they have to come from the original program.

And there is no configuration options for the iconbox to modify any of thise, either they exist, or we're stuck with the default.

Can I request this to be changed? I understand it's a departure from the standards you are trying to follow, but it mould make the iconbox a nicer feature IMHO :)



Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org> had stated the obvious on Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:00:37 +0200 when they said:

> Hugh,
> 
> The icon is provided by the program, ie the program includes an icon and
> advertize it using standard X protocol.
> 
> It's very easy to add, especially when using high level API such as GTK
> (which Sylpheed uses) so the best would be to ask Sylpheed developpers
> to include an icon (and they might ask to provide one :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Olivier.
> 
> On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 21:52, hugh d fegely wrote:
> > Ok, I've been gone for the last four days since Isabel came to town and took out my power until just now...
> > 
> > If the icon box is finding a bitmap, jpeg, png, or other graphic as an icon for programs, where is it finding them? are they built into the programs themselves then (like windoze programs) or are they in a default directory I can add, say "sylpheed.png" and have it use that instead of the default boxes icon..
> > 
> > I'm not a programmer, otherwise I'd try and sit here, tear it down, and put the fix in myself. I'm wondering how a simple end-user like myself can make such a change?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Biju Chacko <biju_chacko at vsnl.net> had stated the obvious on Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:39:02 +0530 when they said:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:47:00 -0700, Bob Snyder wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Since iconbox can recognize when an app has no icon, and displays the 
> > > > default icon, why couldn't the iconbox be changed so that when it sees 
> > > > an app with no icon it allows the user to pick a different 'default' 
> > > > icon for each one?
> > > 
> > > Because thats a hack to work around broken apps. One of the unwritten rules
> > > we've followed in XFce4 development is that we will not add work arounds for
> > > broken apps.
> > > 
> > > One of the reasons why there are so many X applications that don't follow
> > > standards is because every WM has work arounds for common screw-ups. Since it is
> > > so easy to ignore them nobody bugs the developers to fix these bugs.
> > > 
> > > The icon issue is pretty trivial to fix, so there isn't much of an excuse for
> > > applications not to fix it.
> > > 
> > > -- b
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Biju 'botsie' Chacko                        biju_chacko at vsnl dot net
> > > http://www.symonds.net/~botsie          Public Key available on request
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xfce mailing list
> > > Xfce at xfce.org
> > > http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xfce mailing list
> > Xfce at xfce.org
> > http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> -- 
> Olivier Fourdan - fourdan at xfce.org
>    
>    Interoperability is the keyword, uniformity is a dead end. 
>    http://www.xfce.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
> http://moongroup.com/mailman/listinfo/xfce