As a user, I suggest applying some sort of 80-20 rule - if 80% of the extension or feature use is with 20% of the extensions - include the popular 20%. If 80% of the users need the extension, include it - if only 20% need it, let them download it separately. To me it is like the Firefox/Thunderbird vs Mozilla argument - I don't like to bother with extensions for things I use regularly, (ad and popup blockers, calendar, encryption, etc) I want them included in the base. But including low usage features leads to bloatware (things like extra theming, special views, etc). To find out you can poll users or at least run a quick email poll of "friends" (registered list users). For swf, my guess is that swf output becomes more important when an animation module is added to Inkscape, or if there is a good linkage to something like swftools (in fact, that is probably where the conversion ought to be!).
bulia byak wrote:
On 7/1/05, Ted Gould <ted@...11...> wrote:
Well, we're still trying to figure all that out. On one hand we really want to reduce the size of Inkscape, make it easier to install and faster to load. Which means that we want to make as much external as possible. On the other hand, most people aren't of the mindset to install lots of different packages.
My opinion is that SWF support is important to have, so I'd go for it even if it means increasing the size of the distribution.