On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 13:33 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
On Sunday, June 6, 2010, 9:47:33 PM, Ted wrote:
However, that doesn't change my mind that it should be pursued sooner rather than later, we just need to properly namespace proposed things when implementing. :)
TG> The problem with that is that we need to keep the finally rendered TG> version and the intermediates in that namespace -- basically like the TG> LPEs do already.
I agree that the highest-level, most editable form should be kept. Exporting as vector effects could be at user option.
Currently with LPEs you can do an "Object to Path" which will flatten them down to the processed objects.
TG> I think it makes the most sense to keep them as LPEs TG> until the SVG committee finalizes the standard.
Finalising the standard does however require implementations to experiment with and to test. So its a bit chicken-and-egg.
It seems like the LPEs would be enough for that eh? I mean you don't need final XML syntax (well you do, but don't need to test that as much) as much as having the same set of parameters in both to make sure those parameters can create all the effects that you're envisioning.
--Ted