On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 02:14 -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
- I disagree that layers should not be related to z-order. A very useful
operation (in a traditional vector editor) is re-z-ordering layers, which is not possible with your scheme - except if you select all objects in a layer and group them and move them up or down... which brings us back to the original scheme.
You're describing groups; this is something different.
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.
- The notion of current layer is possible (just add the name of the current
layer to all newly created objects), but again this disregards z-order which may be very inconvenient. For example if I work in a layer which is on top of "background" layer but under the "shades" layer, I expect all new objects to be created in between these layers as well.
You're still describing groups.
If he's still describing groups then maybe Inkscape should drop the notion of layers and just work with groups.
I guess using the term "layers" sets up wrong expectations of behavior for people coming from Illustrator/graphic design backgrounds (because Illustrator calls its top-level groups "layers" and limits the functionality of child groups), so we will need to find a better term.
Illustrator also has it's own file format.
What I'm describing is fundamentally different (we will still have groups, so top-level groups will necessarily act like "Illustrator layers") -- think of my "layers" being like search keywords, where one can say "hide all objects not matching this set of keywords".
Actually there's nothing preventing the layer names from BEING keywords. Maybe we should run with that idea?
Anything that maps onto SVG and back seamlessly.