On 6/25/05, Alan Horkan <horkana@...3...> wrote:
Cleaner markup is simply easier to work with in other tools, and given my limited programming skills and the dearth of tools out there my primary tools is a text editor.
Clean markup is nice, but it's far from being a top priority with Inkscape. Other things are usually more important.
(markers are arrowheads and other line decorations right?)
Yes.
I already acknowledged there would be some limitations but I was hoping things could be changed so that Inkscape would only step up from ellipse to path when necessary.
Too many times when this is "necessary". Changing shapes, adding markers, attaching text... Much simpler to just always keep it in <path>.
A single ellipse to represent a circle produces much smaller cleaner and more efficient markup than trying to represent it inaccurately as a series of points on a path.
No loss of accuracy happens for ellipse. The ellipse path uses elliptic arcs which are precise. There's also no difference in performance (at least in Inkscape).
- you can't attach text to <ellipse> etc, only to <path>
(grouping as a workaround? I'll have to take a look at how this works and see if there is a plausible way it could be faked)
No way. Group is no better. The only thing you can attach text to is path, period. That's a limitation of SVG spec.
It didn't in my sample document. Rect can do rounded rectangles so I would be interested to know why you feel it is necessary,
See reasons above: markers and text on path. We even have a bug on that.
I would have thought it would be the ideal candidate for using the standard SVG markup.
Standard SVG markup is just a shortcut for human authors. We don't need shortcuts. They add no unique functionality, yet they add limitations.
I am used to another SVG application one of the few upsides of which is the clean SVG it produces.
Clean SVG is nice for teaching and for simple demos. We are an application for powerful real-world vector graphics. These two goals are sometimes conflicting.