On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM, jf barraud <jf.barraud@...400...> wrote:

Thks. The label has to be changed (it's not good anyway), yes. Not sure if I should also change the code to really use %. Do we have a common practice with this respect (expressing proportional quantities as % or ratio) ?

This is similar to stroking a path, and in that area things are normally in units of stroke width (such as miter limit or marker size). So I think you just need to change the label.

Argh! Writing this I realize there should maybe be only one check box (the same as the one for the one for the y scale factor) (?!) This would simplify the UI, at a low freedom cost (?). In the opposite direction, there could be one check box for each parameter (space, normal/tangential offset...).

Yes, I think it makes sense to have just one checkbox for "all sizes and intervals in units of length". Even better is to have a regular unit selector there, where you'll have all the absolute units as well as % (and in that case, the spinboxes will have to use % and not units of width, but that is not so important after all).

Another remark is that we should decide what level of details we want in the UI: for instance there are at least 3 ways of stretching things to precisely fit the skeleton length: you can stretch -pattern+space -space only, keeping pattern width fixed -pattern only, keeping spaces fixed

For that, in the "Pattern copies" list, we can have these options:

- Single

- Single, stretched to fit

- Repeated

- Repeated, stretched to fit

- Repeated, spaced to fit

I think this will take care of most practical needs.