On 10/17/12 3:11 AM, Per Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Vincent Povirk madewokherd@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that scaling to 32x32 would probably work out better. Personally, I probably would've chosen 128x128, since that would involve no loss of information or distortion (but maybe we don't like the increased file size?).
It's however much more common that a 32x32 icon is already present. In fact, checking my own set of wine generated icons, they all already contain a 32x32 icon. Actually, most contain a 48x48 icon as well.
The issue I am working on resolving here is that many older windows programs only provide a 64x64 icon. With the old code, because there is no 64x64 slot in icns files, these applications where loosing there icons.
Ken's suggestion of making sure we do not overwrite a real 48x48 icon is good and I will implement that.
-aric