14 Feb
2005
14 Feb
'05
3:56 p.m.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:47:47 +0100, Jakub Steiner <jimmac@...446...> wrote:
Looking at it from the interface perspective, I'd call it a brush.
Yes, that's the best term.
You could convert an object into a brush, just like you can now convert an object into a pattern.
And adjust things like spacing, rotation, randomization...
Once you has a brush you could then use it on an object as another property (fill, stroke).
I don't think it can be used on fill, only on stroke. Actually, brush strokes will be their own kind of objects (implemented as SVG <g> with extension attrs) so they won't have any fill.