On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 07:14:59PM +0200, jelle wrote:
Hello Bryce,
If much of the handling of objects would be done through a command line, I
can imagine using the browsers rendering engine to create the end result.
Rendering SVG is something most browsers are capable of, up to certain
limits (filters a not Edge's strong point I believe). Using SNAP or other
javascript libraries building a GUI would be fairly straightforward. But
with the end result being displayed in browsers I see little use for Cairo.
Oh sure, that's true. But that's what's great about SVG, it's a
standardized format that should be renderable by many different
renderers.
Thanks,
Bryce
Cheers,
Jelle
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 16:22:09 +0200, Bryce Harrington
<bryce@...961...> wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:40:59PM +0200, jelle via Inkscape-devel wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>A lot of exiting things going on here. Separating the GUI from the
>>functionality of Inkscape and allowing to use it as a command line tool
>>sounds really cool.
>>
>>Now the question that arises to me is whether that means Inkscape could
>>be
>>used as a service and output could get rendered to a client browser?
>>That
>>would allow for a wide variety of GUI's to be developed that could cater
>>to
>>specific uses. I could envision a touch version and probably a VR
>>interface
>>would be more of an option as well.
>
>I imagine there's a variety of different kinds of solutions that could
>be built atop a generalized backend API. Using it to support web-based
>art seems like an interesting area of exploration. As this is all still
>much in the "hand-wavey" stage, it's hard to predict exactly what will
>and won't be possible, but the overall architectural vision would seek
>to suit a wide variety of "headless" uses.
>
>A lot of work will need to be done before we can say for sure what will
>and what won't be feasible to do, and we'll need to be cautious to not
>get over-ambitious in our planning - better to do just a few new things
>really well, than a whole bunch of different things poorly. But, we're
>all excited by the possibilities and hope others will also be
>enthusiastic in joining us to make it into a reality.
>
>>Obviously the fast rendering with Cairo would be lost that way, but
>>for limited use cases (for instance without filters) that should be
>>fast enough I think.
>
>Could you elaborate? Why would that be lost necessarily?
>
>Bryce