On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:42, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...226...> wrote:
... This is interesting. I just did a quick test, and you might be on to something here. I'll take a closer look asap, but you may want to file a bug, including the steps you use to reproduce it at: http://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/ That way it won't be forgotten and we can easily track what's happening with this particular bug.
Will do...
The reason for which I need the shortest possible string is to use it in a webpage via Javascript code. As the number of objects tends to increase as the webpage gets more and more complicated, I am concerned with loading time.
Then in your case I would recommend NOT forcing all coordinates to be relative, and I would definitely not force it to repeat commands, as both (can) make the path data longer. In principle Inkscape's output should be optimal, if it isn't it's a bug. That is, given a certain path Inkscape will give the smallest path string representing that path upto the specified numerical precision (without resorting to some tricks that make the output extremely hard to read).
Alright then, for the time being I manage quite fine with absolute coordinates. Will keep playing around, though, and test various alternatives.
Best, Adrian