Was anyone at this Chris Lilley's talk last year at SVG Open ?
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/vectoreffects/master/SVGVectorEffectsPrimer.ht...
Should be of course implemented in Inkscape ! It could also render obsolete some BoolOps LPE while beeing perhaps much lighter.
ivan
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 07:23 +0000, Ivan Louette wrote:
Was anyone at this Chris Lilley's talk last year at SVG Open ?
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/vectoreffects/master/SVGVectorEffectsPrimer.ht...
Should be of course implemented in Inkscape ! It could also render obsolete some BoolOps LPE while beeing perhaps much lighter.
I completely agree about it should be implemented in Inkscape (just another thing to narrow the gap with commercial products that already have the capability). I think that vector effects (as well as most other 1.2 proposed stuff) has not been implemented due to the bad previous experience with jumping on flowtext. However, that doesn't change my mind that it should be pursued sooner rather than later, we just need to properly namespace proposed things when implementing. :)
Cheers, Josh
On Friday, June 4, 2010, 9:23:35 AM, Ivan wrote:
IL> Was anyone at this Chris Lilley's talk last year at SVG Open ?
Yeah, I was :)
IL> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/vectoreffects/master/SVGVectorEffectsPrimer.ht...
IL> Should be of course implemented in Inkscape ! It could also IL> render obsolete some BoolOps LPE while beeing perhaps much lighter.
Strange enough I didn't see you there ;-}
ivan
________________________________ De : Chris Lilley <chris@...157...> À : Ivan Louette <ivan_louette@...48...> Cc : Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Envoyé le : Ven 4 juin 2010, 9h 55min 02s Objet : Re: [Inkscape-devel] SVG Vector Effects in Inkscape
On Friday, June 4, 2010, 9:23:35 AM, Ivan wrote:
IL> Was anyone at this Chris Lilley's talk last year at SVG Open ?
Yeah, I was :)
IL> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/vectoreffects/master/SVGVectorEffectsPrimer.ht...
IL> Should be of course implemented in Inkscape ! It could also IL> render obsolete some BoolOps LPE while beeing perhaps much lighter.
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 00:35 -0700, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 07:23 +0000, Ivan Louette wrote:
Was anyone at this Chris Lilley's talk last year at SVG Open ?
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/vectoreffects/master/SVGVectorEffectsPrimer.ht...
Should be of course implemented in Inkscape ! It could also render obsolete some BoolOps LPE while beeing perhaps much lighter.
I completely agree about it should be implemented in Inkscape (just another thing to narrow the gap with commercial products that already have the capability). I think that vector effects (as well as most other 1.2 proposed stuff) has not been implemented due to the bad previous experience with jumping on flowtext. However, that doesn't change my mind that it should be pursued sooner rather than later, we just need to properly namespace proposed things when implementing. :)
The problem with that is that we need to keep the finally rendered version and the intermediates in that namespace -- basically like the LPEs do already. I think it makes the most sense to keep them as LPEs until the SVG committee finalizes the standard.
--Ted
On Sunday, June 6, 2010, 9:47:33 PM, Ted wrote:
TG> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 00:35 -0700, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 07:23 +0000, Ivan Louette wrote:
Was anyone at this Chris Lilley's talk last year at SVG Open ?
http://dev.w3.org/SVG/modules/vectoreffects/master/SVGVectorEffectsPrimer.ht...
Should be of course implemented in Inkscape ! It could also render obsolete some BoolOps LPE while beeing perhaps much lighter.
I completely agree about it should be implemented in Inkscape (just another thing to narrow the gap with commercial products that already have the capability). I think that vector effects (as well as most other 1.2 proposed stuff) has not been implemented due to the bad previous experience with jumping on flowtext.
Yes, the flowtext experience was awful all round. one of the most requested features for SVG, and similar functionality has been supported for decades in vector drawing tools; after being implemented in Inkscape and Batik, it was seized on by the HTML/CSS crowd who initially asked for (multiple) changes but in fact just wanted to kill what they saw as an HTML/CSS competitor. Despite the fact that its a single wrapped line, not exactly a competitor to the full CSS box model.
However, that doesn't change my mind that it should be pursued sooner rather than later, we just need to properly namespace proposed things when implementing. :)
TG> The problem with that is that we need to keep the finally rendered TG> version and the intermediates in that namespace -- basically like the TG> LPEs do already.
I agree that the highest-level, most editable form should be kept. Exporting as vector effects could be at user option.
TG> I think it makes the most sense to keep them as LPEs TG> until the SVG committee finalizes the standard.
Finalising the standard does however require implementations to experiment with and to test. So its a bit chicken-and-egg.
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 13:33 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
On Sunday, June 6, 2010, 9:47:33 PM, Ted wrote:
However, that doesn't change my mind that it should be pursued sooner rather than later, we just need to properly namespace proposed things when implementing. :)
TG> The problem with that is that we need to keep the finally rendered TG> version and the intermediates in that namespace -- basically like the TG> LPEs do already.
I agree that the highest-level, most editable form should be kept. Exporting as vector effects could be at user option.
Currently with LPEs you can do an "Object to Path" which will flatten them down to the processed objects.
TG> I think it makes the most sense to keep them as LPEs TG> until the SVG committee finalizes the standard.
Finalising the standard does however require implementations to experiment with and to test. So its a bit chicken-and-egg.
It seems like the LPEs would be enough for that eh? I mean you don't need final XML syntax (well you do, but don't need to test that as much) as much as having the same set of parameters in both to make sure those parameters can create all the effects that you're envisioning.
--Ted
2010/6/7 Ted Gould <ted@...11...>:
It seems like the LPEs would be enough for that eh? I mean you don't need final XML syntax (well you do, but don't need to test that as much) as much as having the same set of parameters in both to make sure those parameters can create all the effects that you're envisioning.
Vector effects are more flexible than LPEs. Vector effects can be used for things like shapes with multiple strokes, non-destructive boolean operations, offsets, etc. The main difference is that the output of vector effects is arbitrary, while the output of LPEs is always a single path or a group of paths.
For me the ideal solution would be to: 1. Implement vector effects with fallback using svg:switch, 2. Migrate LPEs to vector effects.
Regards, Krzysztof
Vector effects and LPEs are incomparable, in my opinion.
-----Original Message----- From: Krzysztof Kosiński [mailto:tweenk.pl@...400...] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 17:02 To: Ted Gould Cc: Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] SVG Vector Effects in Inkscape
2010/6/7 Ted Gould <ted@...11...>:
It seems like the LPEs would be enough for that eh? I mean
you don't
need final XML syntax (well you do, but don't need to test that as much) as much as having the same set of parameters in both to make sure those parameters can create all the effects that
you're envisioning.
Vector effects are more flexible than LPEs. Vector effects can be used for things like shapes with multiple strokes, non-destructive boolean operations, offsets, etc. The main difference is that the output of vector effects is arbitrary, while the output of LPEs is always a single path or a group of paths.
This of course triggers me to respond. LPEs are more flexible than Vector effects. LPEs can be used for all kinds of non-destructive path alchemy, like boolean operations, spiro, path bending, subcurve stitching, even generating gears out of a number of path nodes. The main difference is that the output of LPEs is arbitrary, while the output of Vector effects is always a simple path or a group of simple paths nearly identical to the input path.
I think objectively, LPEs are more _flexible_, because Vector effects only provides a handful of path chemistry, while LPEs can do pretty much anything that is programmable in C++. However, because Vector effects works with SVG objects instead of just path data, it can do many things LPEs can't do. We discussed this a bit at LGM2010. A possible solution for the non-animatability of LPEs, is to add succesful LPEs as Vector effects. (and which svg viewers will implement those new things? LPEs are generally very math intensive...)
For me the ideal solution would be to:
- Implement vector effects with fallback using svg:switch,
- Migrate LPEs to vector effects.
I do not see how any (well, most anyway) of the current LPEs can be migrated to vector effects. Nor do I see how any (well, most anyway) of the vector effects can be migrated to LPE.
Vector effects and LPEs are incomparable, in my opinion.
Ciao, Johan
About Vector Effects as seen in Chris Lilley talk, I think they could be included in a very clean way in Inkscape Fill and Stroke Editor.
________________________________ De : "J.B.C.Engelen@...1578..." <J.B.C.Engelen@...1578...> À : Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Envoyé le : Mer 9 juin 2010, 11h 34min 39s Objet : Re: [Inkscape-devel] SVG Vector Effects in Inkscape
Vector effects and LPEs are incomparable, in my opinion.
-----Original Message----- From: Krzysztof Kosiński [mailto:tweenk.pl@...400...] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 17:02 To: Ted Gould Cc: Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] SVG Vector Effects in Inkscape
2010/6/7 Ted Gould <ted@...11...>:
It seems like the LPEs would be enough for that eh? I mean
you don't
need final XML syntax (well you do, but don't need to test that as much) as much as having the same set of parameters in both to make sure those parameters can create all the effects that
you're envisioning.
Vector effects are more flexible than LPEs. Vector effects can be used for things like shapes with multiple strokes, non-destructive boolean operations, offsets, etc. The main difference is that the output of vector effects is arbitrary, while the output of LPEs is always a single path or a group of paths.
This of course triggers me to respond. LPEs are more flexible than Vector effects. LPEs can be used for all kinds of non-destructive path alchemy, like boolean operations, spiro, path bending, subcurve stitching, even generating gears out of a number of path nodes. The main difference is that the output of LPEs is arbitrary, while the output of Vector effects is always a simple path or a group of simple paths nearly identical to the input path.
I think objectively, LPEs are more _flexible_, because Vector effects only provides a handful of path chemistry, while LPEs can do pretty much anything that is programmable in C++. However, because Vector effects works with SVG objects instead of just path data, it can do many things LPEs can't do. We discussed this a bit at LGM2010. A possible solution for the non-animatability of LPEs, is to add succesful LPEs as Vector effects. (and which svg viewers will implement those new things? LPEs are generally very math intensive...)
For me the ideal solution would be to:
- Implement vector effects with fallback using svg:switch,
- Migrate LPEs to vector effects.
I do not see how any (well, most anyway) of the current LPEs can be migrated to vector effects. Nor do I see how any (well, most anyway) of the vector effects can be migrated to LPE.
Vector effects and LPEs are incomparable, in my opinion.
Ciao, Johan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
participants (6)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Chris Lilley -
Ivan Louette -
Joshua A. Andler -
Krzysztof Kosiński -
Ted Gould