On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 11:09 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 08:12 -0700, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
Realistically, bitmaps are a part of the workflow out of convenience for users of the format. If you really want to be an old-school purist about this, SVG filters should be considered unacceptable as well. They're basically a "raster manipulation" of vector objects. Start zooming in on things with lighting effects and see how lovely they start to look. Now... I'm not saying I'm against them, but let's look at things for what they are. :)
No, I'd have to disagree with this. The filters are bitmap effects that are applied at the time of rendering, not at the time of saving the file. So the viewer is still choosing the resolution, not the authoring tool. So it's entirely different.
But again... I'm not saying they don't scale. I'm saying go try and make your argument to vector purists in the Graphic Design field (I'm talking people who have been doing this for 20 years or so)... there is nothing you can do to change their perspective. The attitude is that even though the filters are scalable, they still are a "bitmap effect" that is applied to the real vector objects. Nothing will change that. If it could not also be achieved via the bezier & node tools it is not pure vector (yes, masks also do fall into that category too regardless of how old the feature is). That is the real purist standpoint.
Anyway, this topic has steered way off-course and we seem to be into pointless hair-splitting... Who wants to use all this time and energy to actually work on something productive instead? I do! :)