[PATCH 1/3] winemenubuilder: Icon heights/widths of 0 mean 256, for Vista icons.

[Ken Thomases]

On Jan 11, 2011, at 2:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:

> The 256x256 pixel icons are designed to be viewed in that size. They
> can, and often do, contain a different picture to the smaller icons.
> When you scale them down to a smaller size, they look bad. On MacOS
> that may not matter since multiple icon sizes are written and the best
> is chosen, but on freedesktops we only write 1 icon size at the
> moment, and then it gets scaled to something like 64x64, so it really
> does make a difference.

OK.  I'll alter my patchset to be restricted to just Mac OS X.  Thanks for the heads-up.

Personally, given what you say, I think the freedesktop-targeted code should obtain the actual height and width and then make its logic for picking the best size explicit about rejecting larger icons.  That is, it shouldn't just pick the apparently-largest icon and rely on 256x256 being "accidentally" zero-sized.

Also, is it common for Windows icons to contain 64x64 variants?  My impression is that it's not, but I have no hard data about that.  In that case, it's typically better to scale down from a too-big icon than to scale a too-small (e.g. 48x48) icon up.  So, the freedesktop-targeted logic for picking a best size may want to pick 64x64 if present, the smallest size larger than that if available, then the largest size smaller than it as a last choice.

Regards,
Ken