Establishing GTK3 port "rules" (and some q.s)
sidnioulz at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 19:57:00 CET 2015
Le Fri Feb 20 2015 at 17:25:44, ikey <ikey at evolve-os.com> a écrit :
> On 20/02/15 17:21, Harald Judt wrote:
> > Am 20.02.2015 um 18:12 schrieb ikey:
> >> So presenting the gtk 2.24 image menu item isn't much use here.
> >> But I agree, in essence its really not difficult to provide a
> >> replacement image menu item for the porting process.
> >> If it makes 1:1 porting easier, then fine (most likely YES)
> >> However, the comment about stock items stand, they're not to
> >> be used at all.
> >> So what's needed is an xfce image menu item replacement, which
> >> *correctly* integrates.. and uses GtkImage internally, and does
> >> not allow stock usage.
> >> Either way.. this does not need to degrade into a fight about desktops.
> >> Might I also add LXDE is Qt, Unity is Qt with its own GUI toolkit, and
> >> MATE is in-between-lands as well as specifically existing as a fork
> >> of GNOME2, thus none relate to the context of porting XFCE to GTK3
> >> at all.
> > Yeah, really I didn't intend to start a fight. I only wanted to say that
> > just because one desktop env decides to do one thing, that doesn't mean
> > the other needs to decide to follow in every aspect.
> S'all good, sometimes its hard to avoid these things. However I'd rather
> we crunched on with the technical aspects and just knock this one out of
> the park.
> >> Simple simple question: Do people still need an image menu item?
> >> From responses it looks like we should provide something for
> >> compatibility for now. Doesn't need to be anymore complicated than
> >> this.
> > Is more involved than simply extracting the GTK_STOCK icon list
> > definition? It could still be replaced later, or maybe be removed if
> > necessary.
> > Harald
> Hmm, lets please not go down this road. GTK_STOCK is evil for a reason.
> 1) Fixed internal translations inside GTK that are rarely, if ever,
> 1:1 mapping. Secondly there are a limited number of not very useful
> GTK_STOCK icons, which are 99% of the time more easily represented
> in an icon theme. Also remember with named icons (freedesktop standard,
> btw.) these not only update with the icon theme, but -symbolc variants
> can alter with the *GTK theme* - offering greater UI consistency.
> Lastly, there are far more "normal" icons than GTK_STOCK variants. I
> feel its in the best interests to actually just **embrace** them. Let's
> not dig a hole for ourselves here.
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Xfce4-dev