October 2017 - Inkscape Docs - Inkscape Mailman

Extensions guide
by unknown＠example.com 07 Nov '17

07 Nov '17

Hi, I wrote an extension a few years ago, and just updated it this weekend. When reading through the docuemntation I saw that you're looking for someone to write/flesh out the extension guide. I'd like to give it a try. I have experience with with inkscape and python both, not so much with ruby and perl. I have not found any docs for simpletransform, simplestyle, and inkex so I read trough them. They are pretty easy to understand, but it would be nice if there were some deatails about them on the wiki, not just articles using them. matyilona

5 15

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by Martin Owens 02 Nov '17

02 Nov '17

On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:49 +0100, C R wrote: > On second thought, I'd take this down: > > https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music > > Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's > clearly taken from another website. Getty is the company behind iStock Images, this image searched via TinEye (which I highly recommend to anyone doing moderation on images) shows the images was uploaded[1] in 2013 by BlackJack3D. > I'd take this one down too: > https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581 > -8475381764676214363-n > > Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name, > and they have not responded to your question. This is a ceramic tile from San Juan[2] so very likely not made in Inkscape, the email address for the store is ducart at yahoo, where as the user on inkscape.org is an aol address. > And I'd take this one down as well: > https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-wor > ld2 > Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of > the original you pointed to. The law is very clear when it gives people right to parody and create these kinds of cultural commentary works. We take stuff like this down on request from the original copyright holders only. BUT. This work is still not an original work. It was drawn by Menselijke Christen in 2014 using Coral Draw and Illustrator[3]. So it should be taken down on grounds that it's not an Inkscape work and wasn't made by the user > Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof > that poster has the right to license it that way. > > No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website. Generally no. If I draw something infringing, that different to if I copy an image from where else. There's at least a creative step to drawing things which we should be up for defending under grounds of free speech until asked to take it down. Best Regards, Martin Owens 1. http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/music-in-the-heart-gm171271203-2008 0753 2. http://www.mipequenosanjuan.com/puertorican-decorative-tiles.html 3. https://nl.dreamstime.com/redactionele-stock-afbeelding-held-en-jesu s-image66927814s-image66927814

3 10

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by brynn 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Hhm....Yes, believe me, I do a lot of 2nd thinking about this stuff! And fortunately, thanks to Martin, we have the kind of moderation system where one person doesn't carry the entire responsibility. Images are voted up or down (sort of like reality tv haha), and it's possible to even discuss within the system. Thanks Martin! -----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:49 AM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' On second thought, I'd take this down: https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's clearly taken from another website. I'd take this one down too: https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-84753… Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name, and they have not responded to your question. And I'd take this one down as well: https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of the original you pointed to. Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof that poster has the right to license it that way. No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website. Just a few more thoughts. -C On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: > Hi Friends, > I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since > it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not > assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. > > A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the > gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided not > to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - > https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) > > Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images > which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So far, > I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a > discussion, rather than assume. > > Here are a couple of recent examples: > > -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- > https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music > > -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 > (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites > (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with > the same basic image (and this exact image here: > https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/…) > -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) > > --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n > > To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I have > reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be handled? > I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the > member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, > ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of > course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt? > > I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random > images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never > come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 > frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) But > it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these > things. > > Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) > > All best, > brynn > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-devel mailing list > Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by brynn 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

Thanks for your comments, C R. I probably won't change much, if anything, about the way I handle these images. Not without a larger outcry from the community. But when you see one of these images, imagine that I'm shaking my fist and muttering under my breath (like Snoopy !#@&%!$*!!) If we started removing the "could have been" it would start approaching the point where some automated process would be helpful. But for now, there's no burden. Thanks again, brynn -----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:58 PM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' Maybe Martin could add a flagging system ti the galleries. Something that automatically sends a notification to the poster about a suspicious post. They then have x days to respond. If they don't the post is auto-deleted. This may save you some time, and will let the poster plead their case as it were without you having to follow up on it. Just a thought. -C On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:56 PM, C R <cajhne@...2...> wrote: > Hey Brynn. > I'd say if it gets to the point where it's diluting the awesome, maybe > do it in bulk. :) > Until then, I think we all trust your judgement, and appreciate your > help with it. Please do whatever you think is best. > > I agree with all your points. :) > > Re: 100% inkscape... I'm not sure what that means :) I use Inkscape in > Tandem with GIMP all the time, back and forth for example. I doubt > very much if people use Inkscape and illustrator together, but who > knows. Again, I trust your judgement on it. As long as Inkscape is > being used as a graphics tool, I think we should allow posting. If > someone is blatantly abusing our galleries to advertise their > non-Inkscape art, then it's probably a good enough reason to delete > them. > > Not sure if the above is all that helpful, but thanks for your > thoughts and help with all of it. > > -C > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: >> Thanks for your comments, C R. >> >>> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour >> >> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. >> >> Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing. For the image I did search, >> there was no scouring. It was the first result of the first search I made. >> It was clear enough for me just to look at the image. But I searched it out >> just to prove my suspicion. (It's the only time I've done that.) >> >> For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first. If it >> could have been....why not. But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is >> because >> >> (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space. >> >> (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually >> how I catch them. If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my >> experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.) >> >> (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities. I'm afraid it >> gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images. >> >> (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images. It >> kind of dilutes the pool of awesome. >> >> I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an >> Inkscape-only gallery. To me, THAT would be amazing! And to me, that's >> what the website should provide. >> >> I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By >> option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that? Because >> I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which >> Inkscape was used only for part of it. But maybe it would be nice to have >> the "all Inkscape" images easier to find? >> >> Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern >> for the community. But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why >> maybe it should be. >> >> Thanks again :-) >> brynn >> >> -----Original Message----- From: C R >> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM >> To: brynn >> Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel >> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' >> >> >> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour >> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. >> >> I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least >> similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite >> stunning and not really hurting anyone. >> >> Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how >> it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will >> inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future. >> >> Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could >> have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we >> can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was. >> >> Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment, >> saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it >> without having to make any guesses. :) >> >> Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight >> against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much >> more usable and clutter free for everyone. >> >> >> -C >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Friends, >>> I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since >>> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not >>> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. >>> >>> A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the >>> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided >>> not >>> to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - >>> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) >>> >>> Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are >>> images >>> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So >>> far, >>> I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a >>> discussion, rather than assume. >>> >>> Here are a couple of recent examples: >>> >>> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- >>> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music >>> >>> -- >>> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 >>> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites >>> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with >>> the same basic image (and this exact image here: >>> >>> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/…) >>> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) >>> >>> >>> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n >>> >>> To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I >>> have >>> reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be >>> handled? >>> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the >>> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, >>> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of >>> course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our >>> doubt? >>> >>> I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random >>> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never >>> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 >>> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) >>> But >>> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting >>> these >>> things. >>> >>> Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) >>> >>> All best, >>> brynn >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Inkscape-devel mailing list >>> Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >> >>

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by brynn 26 Oct '17

26 Oct '17

Thanks for your comments, C R. > Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing. For the image I did search, there was no scouring. It was the first result of the first search I made. It was clear enough for me just to look at the image. But I searched it out just to prove my suspicion. (It's the only time I've done that.) For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first. If it could have been....why not. But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is because (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space. (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually how I catch them. If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.) (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities. I'm afraid it gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images. (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images. It kind of dilutes the pool of awesome. I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an Inkscape-only gallery. To me, THAT would be amazing! And to me, that's what the website should provide. I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that? Because I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which Inkscape was used only for part of it. But maybe it would be nice to have the "all Inkscape" images easier to find? Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern for the community. But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why maybe it should be. Thanks again :-) brynn -----Original Message----- From: C R Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM To: brynn Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape' Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape. I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite stunning and not really hurting anyone. Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future. Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was. Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment, saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it without having to make any guesses. :) Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much more usable and clutter free for everyone. -C On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <brynn@...78...> wrote: > Hi Friends, > I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since > it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not > assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. > > A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the > gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided not > to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - > https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) > > Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images > which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So far, > I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a > discussion, rather than assume. > > Here are a couple of recent examples: > > -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- > https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music > > -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 > (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites > (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with > the same basic image (and this exact image here: > https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/…) > -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) > > --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n > > To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I have > reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be handled? > I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the > member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, > ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of > course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt? > > I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random > images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never > come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 > frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) But > it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these > things. > > Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) > > All best, > brynn > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-devel mailing list > Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

2 2

DOC help - raster v/s svg
by Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer 22 Oct '17

22 Oct '17

i am ready to contribute to the page stating the difference between an svg and a normal image ^^ . thank you ! Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer, Mauritius abdurrahmaanjanhangeer.wordpress.com

1 0

moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
by brynn 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Hi Friends, I think I probably know how the community leans on this. But since it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not assuming the answer, and finding out for sure. A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way. We also decided not to bother with copyright issues. (long discussion - https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/) Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were. So far, I've been letting these go through. But as I said, I wanted to have a discussion, rather than assume. Here are a couple of recent examples: -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail -- https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@...172.../%E2%98%85music -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2 (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with the same basic image (and this exact image here: https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/…) -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape) --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape. But I have reasons to doubt all of them. How do you all think they should be handled? I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of course with graciousness. Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt? I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.) But it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these things. Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-) All best, brynn

1 0

website curate questions
by brynn 10 Oct '17

10 Oct '17

Hi Friends, Since the external link for this image: https://inkscape.org/en/~mahafuj/%E2%98%85images-27 points to the upload form, I thought I would remove the link via Curate. But it won't let me save the changes unless I enter a URL. The curate form doesn't look like the others I've seen. Usually in the black area, it allows to actually change the image, and the external link is the top field below-right (just under the black area). But here, the external link field is in the black area, and there's no opportunity to change the image. And the usual external link field below the black area isn't there. If I remove the URL from the field in the black area, and click Save, it warns me that the URL is missing, and won't save it. There must be something about this image that makes it different, which would probably explain this. But I don't see what it is. Can someone offer some guidance on this? Thank you very much, brynn PS - At the moment, I don't think this is a bug, or else I would have posted it to the gitlab issue. But if it is, let me know and I'll post a new Issue.

2 4

quick question re website messaging
by brynn 09 Oct '17

09 Oct '17

Hi Friends, Just a quick question. Somewhere recently someone told me not to paste text into the website pages editor, from a word processing type of text document (like LibreOffice). Apparently it transfers conflicting codes or something. Is it the same for using the website's private message? Should I only use Notepad? (I'm just making myself some templates for when I need to message members as a moderator. Then I can just paste in the message, change the member name and maybe the name of the image.) Thanks, brynn

3 4