On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 22:28 +0100, Johan Engelen wrote:
I actually don't understand your last paragraph, but ok :) Somehow it seems problematic to use an svg path to store Inkscape-editor data.
Seems, can you specify problems with a any use of a canvas element?
Why not change the "<p ..." into "<inkscape:conn_point...". True it is more verbose, and you will have to add code to handle transformations etc, but it results in a cleaner SVG I think.
Because
1) these points are not connector points but anchor points. Generic single point canvas elements. Maybe <point or <inkscape:point 2) They're not just editor specific, if the draft spec goes in then we want to be in a good place for animation of these points later. 3) Custom tranformations. That'll result in a mess of code we need not make. A complexity... which isn't necessary. Avoid. 4) Messier svg thanks to inkscape specific elements (with underscores!) not cleaner svg.
I don't mind using a custom element of course, the old 'inkscape:conn-points' attribute design was a complete nightmare of design which I would not replicate.
So, a path with a single point is a point with no current use, we want points; There they are. My point was to use existing points for anchor points of all kinds. Changing that to a new element, so long as it's a canvas element like the path, I don't think is bad either.
I guess you can move the single-point paths with the nodetool. Is that a desired feature, or a nuisance?
Sounds like a feature to me. Although unions will kill the association so bugs over there maybe.
Martin,