Community
Participate
Working Groups
If an image is created using the path to the .ico file, the transparency is lost and the image is corrupted. If the image is created from the stream, this behavior doesn't occur and the image is created properly. This is especially evident when using URLImageDescriptor since it tries to shortcut the creation of the image using the filename.
Created attachment 103229 [details] screenshot The image on the left was created using a stream and the image on the right was created using the path to the file.
Please could you attach the original image and the code you used to draw the screenshot?
It's the new Google favicon: http://www.google.com/favicon.ico If you see the old one just refresh a few times and you should hit the new one. I'll attach it as well. If it would help Shawn has a snippet illustrating the problem.
Created attachment 103360 [details] new Google favicon
Btw, we did check the integrity of that .ico file and it looks fine. We also tried it with a .ico file that we use. Shawn will post some code.
Created attachment 103364 [details] snippet Here is the snippet that I used. I created a button and 2 toolbars. One toolbar loads the image using a stream and the other just uses the name to create the image.
Created attachment 103365 [details] image Here is the image that I used for testing (This should be the same as the one that Mik posted).
Note that IE and Paint on WinXp also draw the icon badly. Somehow GDI+ gets it wrong, but the SWT image loader gets it right.
We also verified that IE draws the icon badly on Vista (i.e., appears to remove the transparency layer causing semi-transparent gray pixels to appear black). IE on Vista renders it correctly in it's Address bar. Firefox on Vista renders correctly in both Address bar and browser page.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.
