On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 22:35 +0200, Colin Marquardt wrote:

Colin Marquardt <colin@...384...> writes:

...

As it says there, should we maybe change the "(root)" to "(Background)"? Gimp 2.2 uses this word,

Scribus 1.2.1 as well, and it's even the default layer there.

Yeah, I think in most programs background is the default name for the default layer...However, in Photoshop it means that all layers are flattened into one layer, background.

Jon

---

This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track? If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy. Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

On Sunday 12 June 2005 23:14, Bob Jamison wrote:

Colin Marquardt wrote:

...

Hi,

the layer name "(root)" is not translatable until now - I filed the following patch for it:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1219305&gro... =93438&atid=604308

As it says there, should we maybe change the "(root)" to "(Background)"? Gimp 2.2 uses this word, so unless calling this the "root" is vector graphics parlance, I think we should switch.

This also comes from my inability to find a nice translation for "root" that doesn't look strange in that context. :)

Cheers, Colin

I think that Background is a good word, but I also think that the SVG term "root" is important to emphasize to the user that this is SVG, not a general-purpose drawing program.

Does the general user care in the end (and does the expert SVG editor care so much to care that its called something other than root)? More users will be comfortable with the term background. Root could be shown in the XML editor for those that will use it.

Craig

Bob Jamison <rwjj@...127...> writes:

I agree that "background" is a good word, and the patch sounds great.

But we really need to stress SVG as the heart and soul of this drawing tool, -especially- for the beginning user, who might be unfamiliar with SVG and its jargon. So not only would Inkscape be a content creation tool, but also a learning device. In addition to providing an editor, we are also serving as advocates for the format.

For the casual user, this might be better achieved by changing the welcome message to "Welcome to Inkscape, the libre SVG editor" or something like that. We might want to do this anyway.

Hmm... would "Background (root)" be too long for the layer name?

Cheers, Colin

On Monday 13 June 2005 01:06, you wrote:

Craig Bradney wrote:

...

On Sunday 12 June 2005 23:14, Bob Jamison wrote:

...

Colin Marquardt wrote:

...

Hi,

the layer name "(root)" is not translatable until now - I filed the following patch for it:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1219305&gro... d =93438&atid=604308

As it says there, should we maybe change the "(root)" to "(Background)"? Gimp 2.2 uses this word, so unless calling this the "root" is vector graphics parlance, I think we should switch.

This also comes from my inability to find a nice translation for "root" that doesn't look strange in that context. :)

Cheers, Colin

I think that Background is a good word, but I also think that the SVG term "root" is important to emphasize to the user that this is SVG, not a general-purpose drawing program.

Does the general user care in the end (and does the expert SVG editor care so much to care that its called something other than root)? More users will be comfortable with the term background. Root could be shown in the XML editor for those that will use it.

Craig

I agree that "background" is a good word, and the patch sounds great.

But we really need to stress SVG as the heart and soul of this drawing tool, -especially- for the beginning user, who might be unfamiliar with SVG and its jargon. So not only would Inkscape be a content creation tool, but also a learning device. In addition to providing an editor, we are also serving as advocates for the format.

This is analogous to how BBEdit is a good teacher of HTML, while Frontpage is awful.

IMHO, this is an SVG tool, and not just an attempt to provide a free replacement for Adobe or Corel. Those tools are common, and SVG editors are rare, which is why a lot of us have contributed considerable effort to the project. Provide EPS and .ai for import/export, but only as enablers. Focus most of the work and features on filling out the specs for SVG 1.1 and later 1.2. That way Inkscape might attain and maintain "best of breed" status in its niche, rather than be mediocre in a much larger field.

(I have also always thought that GIMP should default to PNG, either as standalone or as part of GIMP's intermal format, when the user does not select one. More advocacy.)

It was just an observation from the outside. From the users side, it probably makes little difference, but it will confuse or perhaps, disorient is a better word, new users or users who have no idea about SVG and need to work with layers. "Root" is a typical unix or typical tree based term, background is more closely related to artwork on the user side. Its a little puzzling that SVG would expose such a word to the user, as most users of such a format would probably already associate the primary node with the word root anyway.

Just my 2c.

Craig

Quoting Bob Jamison <rwjj@...127...>:

By the way, as it works, "root" looks like it is referring to placing graphics directly as child nodes of the XML DocumentRoot, while the other layers are <g>roup child nodes of the

DocumentRoot.

Yes.

"Background" would imply that all of these <g>roups are higher in z-order (or farther down the XML file) than all of the non-group children of the DocumentRoot.

Which would be false. Child objects of root are siblings of the top-level layers and may appear either above or below them.

I think calling it "Background" would be gravely misleading.

-mental

mental@...3... writes:

[root is *not* the same as background]

It isn't really the background, though. It's the container for all the layers.

Thanks to all for the interesting thread. Seems like I'm not the only one with that misconception. I now translated "root" verbatim into German ("Wurzel"), which seems to be the canonical SVG/XML translation as well.

Putting objects in (root) when you're using layers can have annoying consequences. It's better to create a separate "background" layer rather than putting stuff at the root level.

This worries me a bit though - we should maybe not have the "Go to root" item in the context menu then. To me, that seems to encourage the usage of (root).

I'll file a bug as you suggested in your other mail.

Cheers, Colin

Michael Wheeler wrote:

The problem I see with changing "root" to "background" is that root isn't the name of a layer like background is. It indicates that its elements are not grouped under any of the layers. In fact, elements under root can be both in front of and behind an element on Layer 1, or any other layer. In English, at least, root seems like the appropriate term, while background could be misleading.

Michael

Ok. I was wondering about that. I have, however, seen stuff in OpenGL called "background," when what they mean is the ambient stuff in the scene tree. Like a signpost might be in the background, but a car might be later in the tree, even though it is physically behind it. Maybe "Base" is a compromise, which can mean both things?

bob

[snip]

Some of these may illustrate the behaviour better: * Float * Unassigned * Global

I am liking global most. It explains the object can be placed anywhere in the stack regardless of layers hierarchy.

If we can't hide it for one reason or the other, I do agree with Jakob that it should be called "Global"... or hmm, maybe "Canvas"? after all we're working on the canvas all the time. Canvas just came to my mind, and I like it better since it's a thing after all and not an adjective, on the other hand it has a bit of the same defect as background... sounds a little bit like it was all the way behind everything else.

Anyways, either one is fine with me, but Background is misleading.

David

mental@...3... wrote:

Quoting bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...>:

...

On 6/12/05, Colin Marquardt <colin@...384...> wrote:

...

As it says there, should we maybe change the "(root)" to "(Background)"?

No, because it's not background at all.

What we need to do instead is just hide "root" when there's at least one normal layer. Mental, can you comment on this? I remember there was some issue with this, but I don't remember what it was.

Me neither. :/

At this point it seems a reasonable thing to file a bug for (assign it to me). Its presence is causing too much confusion.

Would it be better to hide root in the layer menu when it contains no non-layer objects? Hiding root whenever there are layers just sounds bad.

Aaron Spike

mental@...3... wrote:

Quoting aaron@...749...:

...

Would it be better to hide root in the layer menu when it contains no non-layer objects? Hiding root whenever there are layers just sounds bad.

If there are non-layer objects at the root, you'll be able to switch to the root by selecting them.

(root would always be shown in the list while it is the current layer)

I trust your judgement. But how would one select root once it is made insensitive. The layer selector and the XML editor would be the only way. But I suppose in thinking about it, root probably can't be set insensitive because that would be inherited by the whole document.

Aaron Spike