> You want JPEG export. I know others that
> would like Photoshop PSD files. Yet others
> will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric
> formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or
> would it be better to export one or two
> formats and allow the user to use another
> application to convert to whatever they want?
> You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another
> application to do the conversion takes time.
> I want to minimize the time I spend, not
> spend the extra time.
No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and
another application to convert is too much, so
you want JPEG export built in.
*My* point was: if we accept that a few extra
seconds and another application is too much for
you, we also have to accept that it's too much
for the people that want PSD, TIFF or BMP
export built in (and I've known people to want
all of these, for one reason or another).
I'm not against JPEG export from Inkscape if
someone wants to contribute the code, but I
think you're making it out to be a bigger deal
than it really is. Converting doesn't have to
mean loading a full-on editing application like
Photoshop or The GIMP - there are lightweight
applications that require little more than
right clicking on the file and selecting
"Convert to JPEG". Is that really so hard?
> Drawing the line is always a tough
> question? If it were my call, I'd look at
> what's being used in the way of
> hardware/operating systems. With the
> plethora of XP users that are still out
> there, and seemingly in no hurry to upgrade,
> if the file format was available when XP came
> out, that's where I'd draw the line. Nothing
> directly supported for older systems.
When XP came out, eh? That's 2001. The PNG
format has been around since 1996, so that
already meets your requirements. Better be
careful with JPEG though, there are parts of
the spec that have only been finalised since
Yes, I'm being a little facetious, but it's
worth clarifying that "JPEG" isn't a single
spec that was set in stone many years ago -
it's a series of formats that's been refined
and extended over the years. The same for PNG
and many other formats. So if Inkscape gets
JPEG export, is it allowed to use any of the
more recent extensions to the standard? Or
would you prefer it to stick to just pre-2001
features, just to be on the safe side?
> But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who
> have an unknown number of files they've
> created, may want to use again, but can't? I
> think a classy organization would provide a
> separate program to convert the older files
> to a newer file so the user still has access
> to his/her older files. This may be easier
> for word processors than graphics software.
You seem to have jumped tracks to the supported
formats for *import*. I'm not really sure what
that paragraph has to do with the rest of the
conversation, but suffice to say that it's a
damned good argument for using open file
formats (such as PNG, SVG and ODF... and yes,
JPEG - although there have been patent concerns
around it over the years).
I would actually argue that it's (usually)
easier to convert old graphics to new formats
than to do the same for word processor
documents. Older bitmap formats are pretty
straightforward and easy to convert. Older
vector formats are less so, as they can be
rather complex, but they're still not as bad as
the "binary memory dump" that is the .DOC
format. It's simply that there's been more work
put into converting .DOC than (for
example) .CDR files.
> If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap
> format with alpha channels then I *do*
> consider it broken as it prevents you from
> doing a lot of basic things, like putting a
> logo over an image. It doesn't have to be
> PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the
> only widespread open format that does the job.
> We sure define the word "broken"
> differently. <G>
> Bedda define the "basics" then. Because,
> before there was transparency, "basics"
> wouldn't include that ability.
There's been transparency of one sort or
another for a mighty long time. Before PNG, and
before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck,
if you want to go back far enough we were
engraving images into plates of metal, coating
them in ink, and pressing them onto the page.
And you know what... they included
transparency! Any part where the ink didn't
appear was implicitly transparent.
I guess I'm just accepting that it's 2014 and
there are plenty of free (and Free)
applications (and commercial ones) that support
things like transparency, and will run even on
an old Windows XP box. Given that, there's no
particularly good reason why we should continue
to pretend we're in the year 1985 (or even
2001) and we can't have transparency or any of
the other nice goodies that have come along in
the intervening years.
If just about all of your competitors - even
the free ones - support a feature, then I would
definitely consider your software to be
"broken" if you don't support it.
Anyway, this part of the discussion is
relatively pointless, because it's already been
shown that the software in question *does*
support PNG and *does* support transparency.
So we're back to two real points to your
1) PNG files can be big
2) Converting takes time
(1) is a valid argument for wanting JPEGs,
provided you're happy to have a lossy format
with no transparency support. I have no issue
with that. (2) does take time, but it can be
kept down just a couple of mouse clicks and a
few seconds per image. Not significantly longer
than Inkscape would take doing the same thing.
So where's the sense in the Inkscape developers
spending time implementing JPEG support rather
than working on the core code instead?
Why does the OP prefer jpeg to png? Now what I
would like is the facility to save pdf in PDF
X/1-a:2001 format for printers. But I can do
that conversion in Scribus as needed.
Free list of books for self-publishers: