Hi Popolon,
on another subject, I read your blog post:
http://popolon.org/gblog2/script-masque-opaque-opaque-mask-script
and I think this kind of extension well deserves being in the Inkscape's distribution. However, I think that to be really usable and convenient, your script must be changed to do the following:
1. It must embed the bitmap used for the mask into the SVG, using the data URI (see share/examples/data_uri.svg for an example). This way the user won't have to fiddle with the separate bitmap files - much simpler to use.
2. The mask must cover objects of any size, so that the user does not have to think if the object is big enough or not. This can be achieved in two ways: either by scaling the mask bitmap to cover the entire object (but it may grow after that!), or (better) by using seamless bitmap texture and converting it to pattern first (i.e. create a large enough rect; fill it with pattern made from the bitmap; then apply that rect as mask to the object).
This bit is difficult because to do any of this, the script must know the dimensions of the objects currently selected. So I have a question for Ted: how difficult it would be to add new command line parameters in script calls, that would supply these dimensions for each selected object (now, only object IDs are supplied)? Would this break the existing extensions?
3. And finally, to make this really useful, we need to provide at least several different texturizing extensions - they would only differ by what bitmaps they use (plasma, wood, bubbles, clouds, etc etc)
What do you all think?