--- Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 aaron@...749... wrote:
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:38:44 -0600 From: aaron@...749... To: Alan Horkan <horkana@...44...>, Inkscape Devel List inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: SVG compliance? [was Re: [Inkscape-devel] 0.44 plans]
Alan Horkan wrote:
This will result in more non SVG markup wont it? :(
Given how following the SVG specification is stated as a primary
goal it
worries me when things are planned which seem likely to take
inkscape
further away from that. Sure any extra markup can safely be
ignored but
with both SVG and OpenDocument (and other existing schemes)
providing
extensive standards to choose from it seems like there might be
better
ways to do things than creating more markup which is useful only
to
Inkscape.
This is not a compliance issue. This is not a compliance issue.
Describe it how you want but how is a more custom markup really a good thing? Is it not taking Inkscape further away from its core goals or should developers revise their stated goals? Are you really just continuing the Sodipodi mindset of using SVG as a means to an end? (That is fine too so long it is clearly stated.)
I really dont see what your issue is with the custom mark up. That X in XML is there for a reason you know. If you want to loose the functionality it provides but have totally pure svg, never save as Inkscape SVG but always use plain SVG, and you'll have no nasty inkscape: attributes to worry about. As far as I'm aware we always create spec compliant SVG that should render correctly in any other implementation thats spec compliant. When it comes to it, if we offer you output that is pure SVG, wheres the issue with us also offering output thats SVG + custom namespace that gives you a better editing experience?
In response to mental my alternative was not to save the new centre points across sessions (I think the extra step might not really be necessary) avoiding the need for custom markup but still providing the desired functionality.
Except it wouldnt provide the desired functionality at all, which is to remember where i moved the rotation centres to, regardless of wheter i closed the file or not. The example vid i attached to the first post i made on this subject shows exactly the kind of thing where not preserving across sessions would negate the value of this feature.
Also if I'm the only one who thinks creating lots of custom markup is a bad idea and no one is trying to avoid doing it then trying to suggest alternatives all the time will be like swimming upstream.
I'm not going to go out of my way to look through other peoples custom markup to find something, but if you pointed me at something that did the sanme thing, I'd use it.
I had thought Inkscape would gradually use less and less custom markup and make it easier for other software to interoperate (not just view).
How am I making it harder? If I dont save the data, they cant use it. If i do their welcome to read the inkscape attribute too. I really dont see how having this in our namespace is an issue.
If you really think it is a good idea to be adding more and more custom inkscape markup that isn't a problem. The issue for me is it doesn't match with perceptions of what I thought Inkscape was about and with the notion of more and more following standards.
Exactly what standard is it not compliant with? or what standard provides the functionality? I'm not going to limit the capabilities of the software just cos you dont like having anouther namespace in use in your svg. (and again, feel free to save as plain svg)
Greater clarity of what the developers really have in mind is what I'm asking for. If I better understood what you were trying to do I'd be more likely to accept it than to keep challanging you to explain what seem like minor decisions but could have a larger long term impact.
Sincerely
Alan Horkan
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com