Ok. I promise that this is my last post to the list today. I am finally caught up from last week, and now I can start adding the real code and not bother this list.
I added one file: /src/ecma/script01.svg ...which is the example scripted svg file from the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/script.html#ScriptElement
I would like to consider the current goal for scripting to be to make this file work correctly in Inkscape and/or Inkview. Does that sound reasonable?
Bob
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Bob Jamison wrote:
Ok. I promise that this is my last post to the list today. I am finally caught up from last week, and now I can start adding the real code and not bother this list.
I added one file: /src/ecma/script01.svg ...which is the example scripted svg file from the spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/script.html#ScriptElement
I would like to consider the current goal for scripting to be to make this file work correctly in Inkscape and/or Inkview. Does that sound reasonable?
Good idea. That'll be a good proof of concept; a circle that changes radius with each click.
Btw, in the clipart project someone uploaded an svg which apparently implements a game of chess via javascript. If you're interested, here's a link to it:
http://openclipart.org/incoming//chess.svg http://openclipart.org/incoming//chess2.svg
I'm sure that'd be a bit more complex to get working. ;-)
Bryce
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:00:27PM -0500, Bob Jamison wrote:
Ok. I promise that this is my last post to the list today.
I took a quick look at the ecma README. Why did you choose the LGPL over the GPL for the js files? Makes sense to me that we should try not to expand the number of licenses we're using in inkscape; we already use public domain and GPL. Let's just pick GPL for the js files too.
Thoughts?
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 19:44, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:00:27PM -0500, Bob Jamison wrote:
Ok. I promise that this is my last post to the list today.
I took a quick look at the ecma README. Why did you choose the LGPL over the GPL for the js files? Makes sense to me that we should try not to expand the number of licenses we're using in inkscape; we already use public domain and GPL. Let's just pick GPL for the js files too.
Thoughts?
GPL is a bit onerous for languages like Java or JavaScript that don't have clear linking boundaries.
-mental
Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:00:27PM -0500, Bob Jamison wrote:
Ok. I promise that this is my last post to the list today.
I took a quick look at the ecma README. Why did you choose the LGPL over the GPL for the js files? Makes sense to me that we should try not to expand the number of licenses we're using in inkscape; we already use public domain and GPL. Let's just pick GPL for the js files too.
Thoughts?
Well...
Because the LGPL imposes no limitations to any software that merely uses it as a library. In other words, we can have our own code be the GPL, LGPL, the Ishmal Wonder License (IWL ;-), the Navajo Flatbread License (NFL), whatever. I don't really care what Inkscape's license is, but it is nice for us to be able to decide on our own.
Bob
p.s.: I mentioned Navajo flatbread because it is yummy.
participants (4)
-
Bob Jamison -
Bryce Harrington -
Kees Cook -
MenTaLguY