On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 05:19, Charles Goodwin wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 02:14 -0400, MenTaLguY wrote: That's besides the point. Bulia is spot on when he says any implementation should _not_ be Inkscape-specific. Any notion of layers should map directly into SVG and back so that no Inkscape-specific information has to be retained per-document.
Our goal's always been to be SVG-compliant with respect to rendering; Inkscape files already contain a lot of information (in a separate namespace) that cannot map to pure SVG.
So long as we don't render SVGs in a non-compliant fashion as a result of that information being present, I don't see a problem.
Temporary visibility toggles for editing purposes aren't any worse than the "low quality", "non-antialiased" or "wireframe mode" rendering modes that are planned. When they're being used, the interface should make it clear that "what you see is not what you will get".
(and they shouldn't affect the rendering of output images, e.g. exported PNGs)
If he's still describing groups then maybe Inkscape should drop the notion of layers and just work with groups.
That's exactly what I'm advocating, actually, with the understanding that our interface ought to permit treating any group (not just the toplevel ones) in the same fashion as an Illustrator layer.
(as bulia pointed out, it can add some things, but we'll still need to do a lot of traditional "layers" things with groups)
Groups, especially as they're the underlying SVG primitive, oughtn't to be second-class citizens, of course.
-mental