[PATCH 1/3] winemenubuilder: Icon heights/widths of 0 mean 256, for Vista icons.
ken at codeweavers.com
Wed Jan 12 03:58:36 CST 2011
On Jan 12, 2011, at 3:22 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Ken Thomases <ken at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> My argument wasn't just about quality, it was also about the picture
> that's shown: the eMule 256x256 picture is different from the 64x64
> picture, resulting in an icon that users wouldn't see on Windows
I understood that. So, if an ICO has a 64x64 size, then definitely use that. But if an icon has sizes 48x48 and smaller plus 256x256, and if the desktop will display it at 64x64, then it doesn't seem that scaling the 256x256 size down is less correct than scaling the 48x48 size up. Neither will result in a "correct" or "incorrect" 64x64 image because there's no such thing specified by the ICO. Given that there's no correctness advantage, I would think quality would be preferred.
Of course, it's just my opinion. And, since I don't use Linux, I have no stake in the matter. So, I'm happy to let others decide. (I still think the logic, whatever it is, should be explicit about handling the 256x256 variant, when present, rather than leaving it to an accident.)
More information about the wine-devel