On Sunday, June 6, 2010, 9:47:33 PM, Ted wrote:
TG> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 00:35 -0700, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 07:23 +0000, Ivan Louette wrote:
Was anyone at this Chris Lilley's talk last year at SVG Open ?
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/vectoreffects/master/SVGVectorEffectsPrimer.ht...
Should be of course implemented in Inkscape ! It could also render obsolete some BoolOps LPE while beeing perhaps much lighter.
I completely agree about it should be implemented in Inkscape (just another thing to narrow the gap with commercial products that already have the capability). I think that vector effects (as well as most other 1.2 proposed stuff) has not been implemented due to the bad previous experience with jumping on flowtext.
Yes, the flowtext experience was awful all round. one of the most requested features for SVG, and similar functionality has been supported for decades in vector drawing tools; after being implemented in Inkscape and Batik, it was seized on by the HTML/CSS crowd who initially asked for (multiple) changes but in fact just wanted to kill what they saw as an HTML/CSS competitor. Despite the fact that its a single wrapped line, not exactly a competitor to the full CSS box model.
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.
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.