On 3/19/06, Eric Wilhelm <scratchcomputing@...400...> wrote:
# from bulia byak # on Sunday 19 March 2006 10:42 am:
Everything said here applies both to clips and masks.
except that there is no need to link to the entities which are being clipped...
No, there's no difference at all except that one uses <clipPath> and the other <mask>. Other than that, they will behave the same. (But rendered differently of course.)
If I understand this correctly, the plan is to (conceptually or actually) move them out of defs for a bit and onto the canvas proper?
Not at this stage, as I explained many times here. You can move them back out of defs if you unclip or unmask, thus removing the clip or mask. Then you can clip/mask the same objects with the same but edited clippath/mask again.
How would that work with an entity and mask which are both "use"ing a path from the defs section?
No, it's the other way round. It was proposed that a clippath/mask in defs are clones of an object on canvas. But I'm not in favor of that.
This is at least somewhat distinct from clipping in that a mask which is defined by a shape which is identical to thing which it masks is difficult to deal with when it is unmasked.
I'm not sure I understand this. Anyway, this is so far a very abstract discussion - what if you just wait until we commit the patch we have, and then we can resume this discission on a more concrete material?
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org