Gilles J. Seguin wrote: > -1 > I vote against > reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPM_%28image_format%29 > your arguments about transparent pixels is wrong, and XPM is more > flexible than the others one. Me too. > - i do not want to break with the unix tradition of supporting legacy > applications > - are xpm icons still allow in default icon directories > - what will be the beahavior if included > - i do not agree with the pejorative used of old standard > - xpm is still the only way to include raster images in "C" programs > example #include "xicon64" directives > - is the proposition include commenting xlib library manuals for fedora > particular used of icons. > - xbitmap is the only mechanism to specify 15 bits display screen, > or dispaly with depth different from 8,16,24 > - xbitmap can be 32 bits deep > - xbitmap may have alpha channels specified has masks > - xbitmap allow compositing more complex icons > and obviously bitmap is also implied, since they are XPM of depth one Good points there. In addition, I don't think it is the software center's job to arbitrarily restrict allowed icon types beyond what freedesktop.org specifies. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
