On Wed, 26 May 2004, bulia byak wrote:
This is why I asked about the option here in the list. Your desire to get clean SVG is understandable (even though I don't think a pattern fill is in any way "unclean"), but I have a suspicion that the ability to reshape a bitmap will be welcomed by more people (and the list response so far confirms this). Anyway, remember that you (and anyone else who wants to get <image>) will be able to set the corresponding option once and forget about the issue.
FWIW, I also fall into the "clean SVG" camp. Not just for "cleanness", but also because SVG renderers won't necessarily perform as well (visual glitches and slowness) with pattern fills as with bare images.
(they SHOULD do fine, but I have yet to see it done perfectly...)
So images are highly preferable whenever possible.
I disagree. Doing clean and simple things must produce clean, simple, and predictable _behavior_. A rect is a much more familiar, clean, and simple thing to a user than an <image> which is frighteningly inflexible.
I have to reluctantly agree there. My suggestion:
1. there should be a command to "wrap" the selected objects into a patterned rect (determined by their collective bounding box)
2. there should be a corrseponding command to "unwrap" the objects in an SPShape's fill pattern as they appear in the SPShape; I think it's better to make copies of each rather than destroy the pattern. I'm not sure whether this operation ought to remove the SPShape or alter its fill.
That would make it easy to work with <image>s directly when desired (as well as being generally useful for patterns).
That, combined with a checkbox in the import dialog to select the "wrapped" versus "unwrapped" import behavior is probably sufficient to keep everyone happy.
-mental