Just my 2c.
First c. I'd consider also the 'import' point of view. That is, why there should be an 'import' feature if 'open' already manages the same file extensions?
From the user point of view either there are different extensions available
under the two dialogs or the two operations will be considered to be the same. Given this assumption, I think that 'export' should be for what has passed through 'import', to enforce the fact that the file has been converted to Inkscape format, edited and then reconverted back to the original one (or another). If I 'open' a file, I also expect to 'save' it in the original format, not to 'export' also if there is some sort of loss. The same applies for Windows' Paint: you can open and save JPG and you know (or are warned) that it's a lossy format. So, IMHO if you decide to move all save functions under 'export' to follow a point of view (rather than a real technical justification or a _common_ practice), to be fully coherent you should also move all open functions (but SVG) under 'import'. Doing otherwise would break the whole concept.
Second c. These features are not so young: many programmers have already implemented them in a lot of programs out there. I'd say that there is a "standard" for them or at least some behaviour that all more-than-the-last-year users already know or have got used to. Personally I have a very clear idea of how things should go and I don't like when programs chose their personal solution without a good reason for it. In other words, if someone has a great idea for improving what already exist then go for it! Hopefully other will see and start using it making it spread. But if it's only a matter of reinventing the wheel making it oval because circular already exists... :)
-- View this message in context: http://inkscape.13.n6.nabble.com/Your-opinion-about-Save-as-expor-tp4966175p... Sent from the Inkscape - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.