- an object can be in zero or more layers
Such concepts are better called groups or sets. Can what you aim at be described as saved selections?
Yes! I think it's exactly what it is - named selections. And from this viewpoint, the idea is useful, but it should NOT be coupled with visibility any more than it's coupled with z-order. It should be only concerned with saving and restoring selections (that possibly span layers or groups). And after you call it "named selection" and remove any attempts to tie it in with layer-like behavior, the idea of an object belonging to more than one named selection is perfectly legitimate.
The UI might be simple: a "Name selection" command and an extra drop-down list in Find that lists all named selections in document. Or, even simpler, a single combo box on the selector top panel where you can type in the new name of your current selection, or select one of the defined names from a drop-down to reselect them.
And the more I think about it, the more I like this idea. Saved selections can indeed be very useful. Mental, what do you think?
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI...
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 11:59, bulia byak wrote:
The UI might be simple: a "Name selection" command and an extra drop-down list in Find that lists all named selections in document. Or, even simpler, a single combo box on the selector top panel where you can type in the new name of your current selection, or select one of the defined names from a drop-down to reselect them.
And the more I think about it, the more I like this idea. Saved selections can indeed be very useful. Mental, what do you think?
Hmm. I think that by itself sounds eminently sensible. I'm not sure it would completely fill the same niche as some of the things I was thinking about.
Here, let me suggest a use case (what I'd personally use "cross-cutting" layers for), and see what you think is the best way to approach it.
When I'm doing comic projects in inkscape, the way I typically have it organized is each panel is a set of:
* a clipping path, usually taken from the panel border path
* a group with the panel artwork (with the clipping path applied)
* a panel border path, if applicable
For example, the tree might look something like:
<svg> <g id="panel1"> <clipPath id="panel1-clip"><path/></clipPath> <g id="panel1-content" clip-path="url(#p1-clip)">...</g> <path id="p1-outline"/> </g> <g id="panel2"> <clipPath id="panel2-clip"><path/></clipPath> <g id="panel2-content" clip-path="url(#panel2-clip)">...</g> <path id="panel2-outline"/> </g> </svg>
One of the problems I encounter now and then is that my background artwork can get pretty complex.
Something I'd like to be able to do is to "tag" the background artwork in all the various panels (at least, everything but the gross details critical to composition) so I can hide/show it while I work (so editing isn't so slow, and it doesn't get in the way).
-mental
participants (2)
-
bulia byak -
MenTaLguY