Re: X/Cygwin icon proposal

["Earle F. Philhower, III" <earle at ziplabel dot com>]

Howdy Harold,

> Subject: Re: X/Cygwin icon proposal
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:22:12 -0500
> From: Harold L Hunt II <huntharo@msu.edu>
> > For someone who's entire contribution to XWin has been
> > an alpha-blended X icon you've got some loud opinions...
..> http://x.cygwin.com/devel/server/changelog-050.html
> He added the "-nodecoration" parameter, scrollbar support, build rules 
> for Windows resource files, lots of stuff.

Sorry, then, Nahor, didn't recognize the handle.  (Just when I was
getting a good flamefest started, too!)
..
> But Windows has rules for picking icons from executables (but they are 
> hard to find documentation on) and I would hope it is possible to order 
> the icons and provide the proper formats such that the default icon for 
> the *executable* (not shortcut) would be the one that looks nicest on 
> the system.

Yes, the .EXE it's going to take IIRC the 1st icon it finds in the file
(lowest resid, I think).  What I'm really surprised about here is that
the ICON format lets you store a bunch of different formats in just
one ICON resource (you can specify a 1-, 16- , 256-, or 16M color,
all in 16x16, 32x32, and 48x48 in one ICON).  Does the one that
everyone is so riled up about have the other, fallback formats included?

If not, can they be added and tried out?  You could make the
non-alpha version of the ICON all the boxed-X and leave the
16M+alpha one as the floating X...

As long as it doesn't crash, it can be a picture of an emu as far as I
care, but that all centers on whether that emu is safe under earlier
OSs or not...Crashing emus stink...
-- 
-Earle F. Philhower, III
 earle@ziplabel.com
 http://www.ziplabel.com