I noticed another mention of Inkscape here:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/19/214206
Bob
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Bob Jamison wrote:
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:27:45 -0500 From: Bob Jamison <rjamison@...357...> To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Inkscape-devel] Article mentioning Inkscape
I noticed another mention of Inkscape here:
Footnotes, Gnomedesktop.org has also picked up the story http://www.gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid=1890
Same article mentioned on OSNews http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=7755 editorial comment was Our Take: While these apps are extremely valuable for Unix users, they can't compete in the professional marketplace with Photoshop or Illustrator. They just don't do as much or they don't always do it in an expected way. More here and here.
It is a fairly broad but straightforward statement, not something I'd expect people here to disagree with (inkscape doesn't need to beat Illustrator, users can have both!) but predictably it offended lots of gimp users. Few of the comments mention Inkscape, I wouldn't recommend trawling through them, in fact aside from the editorial comment there isn't really anything extra added to the story that is relevant to inkscape.
Jon's comment the other day about directly targeting the market for Mobile SVG was particularly interesting, it looks like a strong opportunity fill a niche and to commercialise Inkscape if any developers were interested in competing in 'the marketplace' and earning from their work on Inkscape. (If only I were a C++ programmer!)
- Alan
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 13:04, Alan Horkan wrote:
Jon's comment the other day about directly targeting the market for Mobile SVG was particularly interesting, it looks like a strong opportunity fill a niche and to commercialise Inkscape if any developers were interested in competing in 'the marketplace' and earning from their work on Inkscape. (If only I were a C++ programmer!)
Incidentally, our current level of SVG support fits SVG Tiny almost exactly (we are still missing SVG fonts and animation, but we have gradients, which is extra...)
-mental
So, maybe we can become a 100% SVG Tiny Compliant editor before 100% copliant full SVG Editor, right?
JC (JonCruz) and I on the chat channel discussed some possibilities like the ability to make layers have different constraints, such as one layer could be an SVG-Tiny layer, another could be SVG-Tiny, but the profile for some other device, and another could be for full SVG. This way, we could support the multiple platforms support of SVG-Tiny and also deal novely with implementation of a tech. that is going to scale up in terms of popularity and corporate sponsorship -- SVG used on the phone!
Jon
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 20:59, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 13:04, Alan Horkan wrote:
Jon's comment the other day about directly targeting the market for Mobile SVG was particularly interesting, it looks like a strong opportunity fill a niche and to commercialise Inkscape if any developers were interested in competing in 'the marketplace' and earning from their work on Inkscape. (If only I were a C++ programmer!)
Incidentally, our current level of SVG support fits SVG Tiny almost exactly (we are still missing SVG fonts and animation, but we have gradients, which is extra...)
-mental
On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 02:46, Jon Phillips wrote:
So, maybe we can become a 100% SVG Tiny Compliant editor before 100% copliant full SVG Editor, right?
Yes, I think that's probably a good intermediate milestone.
JC (JonCruz) and I on the chat channel discussed some possibilities like the ability to make layers have different constraints, such as one layer could be an SVG-Tiny layer, another could be SVG-Tiny, but the profile for some other device, and another could be for full SVG. This way, we could support the multiple platforms support of SVG-Tiny and also deal novely with implementation of a tech. that is going to scale up in terms of popularity and corporate sponsorship -- SVG used on the phone!
Support for the <switch> (if I remember the name correctly) element might also be helpful in that regard.
-mental
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 23:46, Jon Phillips wrote:
JC (JonCruz) and I on the chat channel discussed some possibilities like the ability to make layers have different constraints, such as one layer could be an SVG-Tiny layer, another could be SVG-Tiny, but the profile for some other device, and another could be for full SVG. This way, we could support the multiple platforms support of SVG-Tiny and also deal novely with implementation of a tech. that is going to scale up in terms of popularity and corporate sponsorship -- SVG used on the phone!
I think this is something that we should look into. If Macromedia is thinking that SVG Tiny is important enough to invest resources in, it probably isn't a flash in the pan. I think it is definitely a good idea for the cell phone folks.
Anyway, I'm not sure if a separate layer is the best way to go though. I don't know if artists will be disappointed with this. Remember, then to support the different formats, someone will have to redraw everything to fit all the different profiles of SVG they want to support. Which, in turn, requires them to know what these elements are, and to notice them in the document. Both are non trivial.
So, I think that we're going to have to be smarter (which unfortunately means more work for us).
I think one of the key issues will be disabling features. While today, we don't have many features that go beyond some of the profiles, in the future we are likely too. I think we'll need to have some way to identify those features, and that is something we should do sooner rather than later.
So, what I was thinking, is putting a 'mask' on the verbs that would say where this verb is supported. So something like:
{SP_VERB_FILE_QUIT, "FileQuit", N_("_Quit"), N_("Quit Inkscape"), GTK_STOCK_QUIT, INKSCAPE_BASIC_FEATURE}, {SP_VERB_EDIT_TILE, "EditTile", N_("_Tile"), N_("Convert selection to a rectangle with tiled pattern fill"), NULL, INKSCAPE_SVG_FULL | INKSCAPE_SVG_BASIC},
So, then at some point, we could put in code to de-activate features which are unavailable in the selected profile. Ofcourse, we'd have to move more things like gradients to being verbs, but I think that was kinda the plan anyways.
Thoughts? Piggy back ideas?
--Ted
participants (5)
-
Alan Horkan -
Bob Jamison -
Jon Phillips -
MenTaLguY -
Ted Gould