3 ms·
While this is not a legal document, NSImage class docs have the following text for some constants: Images representing standard artwork and icons that you can
by dchest 17y ago
While this is not a legal document, NSImage class docs have the following text for some constants:
Images representing standard artwork and icons that you can use in your applications
Drag images you can use in your applications.
Images representing sharing permission icons that you can use in your applications.
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ApplicationKit/Classes/NSImage_Class/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000344-SW84 http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/R...
However, NSImageNameComputer, which Rogue Amoeba uses, doesn't have "you can use in your applications":
Images representing Finder items.
Though, it has the following text:
You should use these images to reflect specific elements of the Mac OS X environment. For example, you might use the burnable folder icon if your software allows the user to organize content for burning onto an optical disk. The appearance of images can change between releases. If you use an image for its intended purpose (and not because of how it looks), your code should look correct from release to release.
Does Rogue Amoeba use these images to reflect specific elements of the Mac OS X environment? I guess so.
- Timothee 17y agoThanks for finding this. I think the issue is that this doc is for the Mac API. So it's fine to show these images on the application running on the Mac but that's it, not on the iPhone app. (at least, I imagine that's Apple's point)
- voidpointer 17y ago"Does Rogue Amoeba use these images to reflect specific elements of the Mac OS X environment? I guess so." I would agree they do, but them they don't do it in the Mac OS X environment but using it on the iphone... (Apple managed to create such a seamless integration of the environments that even seasoned developers are getting confused) It feels very silly to argue about user experience matters like they were laws - but that seems to be where those lawyers are getting us :( What if they took (or bought) a photograph of an imac etc. by themselves (maybe remove the apple logo as is normally done in stock photography in order not to infringe on trademarks) wouldn't that have been the most customer serving move on RA's part?