About your suggestion of naming icons like:
- HELLO.ICO
- HELLO.PNG (64x64)
- HELLO_128px.PNG
Why not just making HELLO.PNG at 128x128? Is there some performance issue or limitation for BIGICONS to resize a 128x128 png file to render 64x64 on the WPS desktop? If not I would prefer to go only with the bigger one. I haven't tested this further.
I also wondered about the .ICO, why don't make it as big as possible and that can be supported by the WPS desktop?
The last question is the problem. I cannot support an OS which isn't available to me. My size limit is 40x40 too, from an user's point of view.
What are the icon size limits of ArcaOS? Often I won't mind to create a 128x128 icon, if my copy of ICONEDIT.EXE allows me to do save such a file, but are 128x128 and 64x64 your versions of my 40x40 and 20x20 (or 32x32 and 16x16)?
I just mentioned the PNG files because I saw 'em in the useful x:\SYS directory overview of Dave Yeo. Does ArcaOS look for a file called HELLO.PNG, just like OS/2 can look for a file called HELLO.ICO?
If you keep file sizes of a distributed HELLO.ZIP in mind, then what's the best option? I do prefer an icon saved in HELLO.EXE, with a HELLO.ICO as a next best option, but is it e.g. possible to save smaller icon sizes in the EXE and the large ones as PNG files?
Is the _128px.PNG suffix a standard? IOW: if you are executing MARTY.EXE, then will the OS look for a file called MARTY_128px.PNG to find an icon if there's none.
I don't mind distributing both PNG and ICO files, but not as "Open Image Source".