On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Aaron and Sarah Spike wrote:
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:11:43 -0600 From: Aaron and Sarah Spike <spike@...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]
"Inkscape's main goal is to create a powerful and convenient drawing tool fully compliant with XML, SVG, and CSS standards."
complaince conformance ... these words are very loaded I'm sorry I didn't pick some other way to better express my concerns.
Alan Horkan wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 aaron@...749... wrote:
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?
No, let's not just call it what we want. Let's describe it accurately and agree upon definitions for the words we use.
I'd appreciate suggestions on how better to voice my concern about the use of more custom markup.
No custom markup is not a good thing. Certainly not if it isn't well documented and published.
In many cases custom markup is bringing us closer to "powerful and convenient" and no further from "fully compliant".
Custom markup can be ignored but makes it more difficult for other software to directly interoperate and benefit from extra markup and encourage healthy competition for Inkscape. It may also cause difficulties for users sharing files with people not also using the latest version of Inkscape. Given the sucess of Inkscape and slow turnaround of most distributions problems seem inevitable.
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.)
Some developers most definately are. But they are diligently working within the bounds of the means.
Well it helps to know there are developers who intend to expand on their use of the inkscape namespace because I had the apparently false impression people were interested in using less of it.
The option to export to Plain SVG balances things out a little but the general enthusiasm for the SVG standard and my own overenthusiasm had me thinking there would eventually be little or no difference between Inkscape SVG and Plain SVG but I take it from your comments that is unlikely to ever happen. It seems I just plain go the wrong idea.
(Meeting in person and talking to you all would be great, more reaons for me to make an effort to try and attend the Graphics Libre meeting this Springtime)
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.
You aren't alone. I agree with you. But you will be swimming up stream if you continualy condemn the inkscape namespace as non-conformant instead of suggesting alternatives.
The other suggestion would be to use the OpenDocument Draw namespace to support (things like additional gradient types) until such time as the SVG includes more of what is needed. Would make XSLT transformations and other conversions a little simpler but seeking out existing standards and using them is more more than creating more items in the inkscape namespace but maybe it really isn't worth doing.
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 challenging you to explain what seem like minor decisions but could have a larger long term impact.
Please reread this final sentance and the previous paragraphs. Do you see how loaded your language is?
Sorry, I should have known better than to mention Sodipodi, never a good idea. I realise I could have chosen my words more carefully but as I fall behind the mailing list and have to read back mail for several days I tend to respond a little more hastily before the thread is completely gone. Normally I try to draft a mail and leave it a while before posting.
Mental said the "burden" was on me but I dont want to burden the developers or take on a burden I cannot realistically manage. If I know which way the current is flowing I can choose to follow it or get off or make minor adjustments without getting in the way of the bigger issues.
Given the fuss over the keybindings I cannot help feeling if I dont point out my concerns at the time it will be too late small for incremental changes. There are lots of little things which add up to bigger problems and each little issue has me seeing bigger problems (perhaps imagnined) that are harder to change the longer they remain.
and implication of your words. Your choice of language is such that even though I agree with you I cannot take your side. This cannot be beneficial to your cause.
I will try and choose my words more carefully
- Alan