- Inkscape Users - Inkscape Mailman

Re: [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units
by Tyler Durden 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

Greetings all, A universal default.svg with units px and scale=1 provides a simple single solution to a number of issues: - Resolves broken extensions and features like symbols and outset/inset, etc. - No need for users to consider scale, they just set the display units and work. - No need to tailor localizations with in/96, mm/3.77953. - Fewer bug reports for scale and localization issues. - Neophytes are less likely to abandon Inkscape as confusing or complicated. That's a lot of benefit, for what could be relatively little effort. Like with any graphics or CAD application, users should be familiar with setting document units when starting to work. This is the most basic of best-practices. Even making a template is not difficult, but a button/tool to save the current document as a template would be very handy. Regards, TD

1 0

Re: [Inkscape-user] [Inkscape-devel] the Scale setting and Display units
by Ryan Gorley 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

Since it's now America first maybe we should use 8.5 inches by 11 inches as the default. :P Sarcasm aside, I do find it mildly annoying to have to go into the Document Properties every time I load an instance of Inkscape to change it (almost always to pixels). I know this can be changed in the config directory, but being able to change the default page size and units in the GUI seems like a reasonable feature. Alternatively (or additionally) presenting the Document Properties dialog on startup is the way many graphics applications handle this. I doubt we'll find any size/unit combo that makes everyone happy. *Ryan Gorley* Managing Partner | Dijt <https://dijt.co> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Eduard Braun <eduard.braun2@...26...> wrote: > Am 21.09.2017 um 13:14 schrieb LucaDC: > >> Eduard Braun wrote >> >>> Hehe, we're back to the question "what is one pixel" and as far as >>> Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px is 1/96 inch, so it is a real >>> world size and this pixel size in fact *is* the standard pixel size >>> according to CSS2. Y'all should really read Mc's posts on units. ;-). >>> >> If this sentence was as strong as it tries to appear, the transition from >> 90 >> dpi to 96 dpi would have been a lot less painful. Oh, sorry, I was wrong: >> the transition wouldn't even had been necessary! >> >> "Pixel" is not listed in The International System of Units (SI), where mm >> is >> (well, m of which it's a power: >> http://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/base-units.html). So you can't >> say >> that the definitions of pixel and mm have comparable weights and scopes. >> 1 mm is 1 mm. Full stop. >> I agree that today a pixel can be related to a real world size unit (1/96 >> of >> an Inch), but yesterday it wasn't so who can guarantee that tomorrow it >> will >> still be? >> SI units are there not to suffer of this uncertainty so that's what I call >> _real_world_units_, not something that can be changed to fit the needs of >> a >> so quickly evolving technology. >> > I don't disagree with you, a meter (why are we using mm? ;-) ) is > certainly a better measure of length than the pixel. However - while I'm an > advocate of SI myself - it's certainly not the only measure and needs are > different. Just because *you* prefer the meter does not mean other people > work the same way. You only want to offer SI units? Great! Let's drop > inches and point, too! A user wants to design a screenshot for their full > HD screen? Let's tell them to make their document 1920x1080 mm² because "1 > mm will always be 1 mm" (no wait... because the px is flawed they're > probably out of luck anyway - or should they measure their screen with a > ruler... I'm confused ;-) ) > Maybe you're right and with high DPI screens becoming more and more > popular it's time to say goodbye to pixel units for most content. But for > now they still have their uses and it's not for us to decide! If an > application complicates certain usage scenarios on purpose it's bound to > upset some people and leaves a bad impression behind. I don't want that. > > At the very least I think we need a possibility to select the default > template via UI (I even opened a bug about that some time ago: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1673608) so users can make a > choice on their own without too much hassle. > > Eduard Braun wrote >> >>> personally I'd feeld a lot safer to use a px-based (unscaled) SVG as a >>> base for production than to rely on some SVG with millimeters as user >>> units that Inkscape currently implements via a viewBox scaling of the >>> whole SVG (which broke a lot of our export extensions and might just as >>> well confuse import filters in other software). >>> >> If I get this sentence right, it makes me feel you've not completely >> understood how a (current) mm document is made. What could be >> misunderstood >> in a document where mm is the unit, the page is 297x210 and you have an >> object with dimensions 10x10? Actually I can't see any "viewBox scaling of >> the whole SVG" here, unless that's how you call the viewBox function >> itself. >> Perhaps you're making a bit of confusion between px as 1/96 of an inch (as >> we've been talking up to now) and px as user-unit (as per SVG >> specifications): a user-unit is not (necessarily) 1/96 of an Inch, and >> that's what the viewBox is for: nothing strange or outside SVG >> specifications here so broken extensions or import filters are simply >> buggy. >> And as far as Inkscape (since 0.92) is concerned 1 px (in the SVG sense, >> i.e. user-unit) is not always 1/90 or 1/96 inch anymore. At last. >> > You don't have to lecture me, I'm quite familiar with what we do > internally. > > The problem is not so much the correctness of the SVG (I don't argue with > that) but what other software makes of it. And while you're absolutely > right that software not properly handling the viewBox attribute should be > considered broken, it does not help our users. Do you want to tell them > "hey, Inkscape is doing everything right, here, look in the cryptic > specification users should never have to care about and see for yourself > we're not to blame?" That won't help them at all... > > Also the length of this thread shows how "good a job" we're doing at > hiding all those internals from the user and giving them something they can > easily work with, regardless of their specific application. > > Regards, > Eduard > > > Luca >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-Dev-f2781808.html >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------------ >> 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 >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > 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-user] the Scale setting and Display units
by Tyler Durden 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

Greetings. A suggestion from the peanut gallery... 1) All future releases have default.svg with the display units set for px, scale= 1uu/px 2) Move the scale controls to another tab in the Document Properties panel, with language to describe function. 3) Expose the "Set page to drawing or selection" toolset (which is often overlooked by new and veteran users) on the Page tab of the Document properties panel. Mockup of modified Document properties panel: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/zfz9yetclfy1m21/mockup1.png (also attached in case this board allows) The above changes should alleviate most of the confusion and retain the controls for scale. Typical users needn't be concerned with scale and its complicated workings. Thank you for your time and consideration, TD

10 18

Re: [Inkscape-user] the Scale setting and Display units
by Jabier Arraiza 20 Sep '17

20 Sep '17

Hi. The display unit in mm is a good option for printing and anybody can change using a template or modifing the default one. Maybe a prompt when change display units to retain current scale could be a good option, I always need to change to previous scale (normaly 1.00) once change to display_units. Also I add a option to resize to content, what I retain collapsed by default, to make the same value in 4 inputs. Regards, Jabier.

1 0

Linebreacks: last and first word of lines are melting together
by Onsemeliot 10 Sep '17

10 Sep '17

I wonder if others experience the same behaviour: I created a folder layout where I put the front and the back pages on separate layers. I use text boxes with justified text and adapted the letter-space in some lines in order to get more or less uniform text blocks. This seems to work fine on first glance. Unfortunately after saving and opening the file again I end up with some lines where the last word of the previous line fuses with the first word of the next line. This of course messes up my line breaks. I can easily "repair" this by inserting a space between those two words again but I have to look very carefully to not miss any instance each time I open my file for editing. So far I couldn't figure out when exactly this happens. It could be random but I suspect it happens when two lines with letter spacing definitions follow after another. But it doesn't happen always to the same lines. I guess when saving and opening the XML code of the file gets interpreted slightly different resulting in losing the space between some words belonging to two different blocks of letter spacing. Maybe it only occurs if both blocks do have the same value. I imagine there is a clean-up that removes unnecessary tags losing spaces on the way. I use Inkscape 0.92.1 r15371 on Debian GNU/Linux 9 (stretch) 64-bit with standard GNOME 3 on a Technoethical T400s (which in fact is a refurbished Lenovo T400s with Libreboot). Thank you for any feedback, Onsemeliot

4 3

Convert textPath to rotated text
by Joel C. Salomon 07 Sep '17

07 Sep '17

Neighbors, I have in an e-book a title page formatted with SVG, using <textPath> to place text along a curve. To reduce the picture to a minimum example, consider curvetext.svg: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 160 256" width="160" height="256"> <g style="text-align:center;text-anchor:middle;stroke:none;"> <path style="fill:none;" d="m 0,72 c 32,-16 52,-20 80,-20 28,0 48,4 80,20" id="path-upper" /> <text style="font-size:9px;" ><textPath xlink:href="#path-upper" startOffset="50%"><tspan >Text to be Placed Along a Curve</tspan></textPath></text> </g> </svg> Trouble is, Kindle (among other platforms) doesn’t support <textPath> in SVG. I can generate a raster image, but that’s no fun. But experimenting with various formats suggests this: $ inkscape -A curvetext.pdf --export-ignore-filters curvetext.svg $ inkscape -l curvetext2.svg curvetext.pdf And it works, generating lines like <text transform="matrix(0.94068351,0.33928532,0.33928532,-0.94068351,17.864857,145.9156)"><tspan y="0" x="0">T</tspan></text> <text transform="matrix(0.94997891,0.31231406,0.31231406,-0.94997891,20.665461,146.93493)"><tspan y="0" x="0">e</tspan></text> <text transform="matrix(0.96048875,0.27831882,0.27831882,-0.96048875,24.497618,148.19598)"><tspan y="0" x="0">x</tspan></text> <text transform="matrix(0.96875188,0.24803186,0.24803186,-0.96875188,28.337099,149.29823)"><tspan y="0" x="0">t</tspan></text> Well, the result actually includes a bunch of other boilerplate that Inkscape likes to add to SVGs (some of which I’ve removed for clarity in the example above), and also it adds a global transform matrix, <g transform="matrix(1.3333333,0,0,-1.3333333,0,256)"> around everything and the result is generally odd-looking code. And maybe I should just let Inkscape do its thing and not worry about this. But what I’d really like is to compile down ›just‹ the <textPath> code, and have it yield something anchored around where the text actually appears on the page (maybe the start of the <path> at (0,72), or the midpoint at (80,52), or something plausible). Is what I’m looking for at all reasonable, and is there some way to accomplish this with Inkscape? (I’m prepared to hear “no” to both parts of my question.) ––Joel C. Salomon

2 2

Re: [Inkscape-user] Pencil pressure
by Jabier Arraiza 29 Aug '17

29 Aug '17

> Wow ! This feature brings discoverable and quick access to Power > Strokes, really awesome enhancement, it will be very useful! > > Thanks Jabier for the really quick integration and Nate for the > suggestion. This is a great FLOSS collaboration example ! :) > > Victor Thanks so much for the feedback!

1 0

Pencil pressure
by Jabier Arraiza 28 Aug '17

28 Aug '17

Hi all. By a request from a user i do this last work: https://archive.org/details/inkscapepencilpressure Best wishes, Jabier.

3 3

Autoreply: Inkscape Vectors Meeting - This Friday!
by unknown＠example.com 17 Aug '17

17 Aug '17

1 0

Inkscape Vectors Meeting - This Friday!
by Ryan Gorley 17 Aug '17

17 Aug '17

This month Vectors meeting will be hosting our first official meeting (see agenda <https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape-vectors/admin/issues/1>)! There's a lot of need for diverse talents so please join us: * Friday, August 18, 18:00 GMT (14:00 EST) * https://teams.freecreatives.org/inkscape We look forward to meeting you and getting your input. :) Ryan @ Dijt <https://dijt.co>

1 0