Re: Multiple styles in icon themes and the future of the XDG icon specs
Noah Davis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.xdg.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <3411342.BHrxZqPl4z@noah-opensuse-k501uw> |
On 2019-11-20 01:04:29 EST, Simon Lees <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the simplest way to do this is to focus more on implementing it > in the toolkits rather then by drastic changes to the desktop spec. > Possibly the best way forward could be to teach toolkits to use two > themes, the standard theme and the "application" theme (for lack of a > better name). If the application theme is set then the toolkit would use > it over the "main" theme for the elements you suggested such as buttons > etc. You could then extend the button api etc with a flag that tells it > to use the main theme instead. You could also add api to QApplication > (or its equivalent) that specifies certain applications like maybe > desktops should ignore the application theme. > > In a similar way to the way the current spec allows you to set a > fallback theme for missing icons we could also extend it to specify a > "application" theme that it could choose to use or not to use. > > If you were to then ship a breeze-monochorome theme that falls back to > the breeze theme, users of toolkits that didn't support this new > functionality could choose to use breeze-monochrome and have 95% of > there icons looking right (with the exception of ones with conflicts). > If a KDE user was to set gtk to use breeze-monochorome for example then > pretty much all of there icons would look in place. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction, although I feel a little out of my depth. I suppose there are probably some people I could talk to in the KDE community that are already familiar with modifying Qt. > The default enlightenment / efl icon set is taking a similar stylistic > approach but rather then using monochrome for most things like actions > it uses a single shade of blue. That's quite interesting. Do you have any links I could follow to have a closer look? Is this in the current released version? _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 488 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEE68CSWlByj+9xOXZrI8RG50aikOUFAl3We8oACgkQI8RG50ai kOUkAwgArv+KxJxsXTVZIte4tBFZYTb3P8s2UR/ILDdJmbMICaMpz8sMCIiWBXex UxmGAi00qhgVRTXJ+BAEIN/fpwyt5XMuGS4HrlhH8TI7PEDuNOdo0LFake8zDM+a v0FLDi+Xb1POeG6MCOlijY+nU1UtcuOo5PkfEw0QVsk+zRI6qjOspm+QxHzDAYJF fz2txCQ9bNQFLV33VK7scmvKy1gV5L53NV+wYj4KG0Gu9EzY9mVvR7rmwGByCsga ORipzFdygfN+rdjKCJsCqEjtUDlX8ANCF4ap2CRhoWUBMPwCtZdTIO/m4DeTNFl5 JonsIOZC5iq+oZoPwZt9WzT00UcWQg== =SJoQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----