On 23 April 2017 at 00:47, C R <cajhne@...155...> wrote:

fwiw, you have lots of good ideas. I'm not sure why Steve has this
burning desire to dismiss the lot of them as if it were one single
request. Don't let it discourage you. Most of what you're proposing is
already in the works in various stages, or in plans for the future. It
is certainly not "crap", and a rather large community of artists and
more than a few devs agree with most of your list items. Steve seems
to be saying "hey, let's not do that all at once, and make the
software too complex!". I think we can let him have that point. What
do you think? ;)

Yeah, I agree. I'm not about Internet fights! I don't think Steve need worry that I have any weight at all and can add complexity somehow! I was expelled from Hogwarts because my ZX80-wand was too slow! No magic here. :)

I liked your description in this para from a mail up-thread: [my additions/edits]

"The whole point of the [OPs] list was that Inkscape needs to grow beyond using SVG as a CONSTRUCTION format. Specifically because there's a lot more we want to do, and unfortunately the world has lost interest in making SVGs better.
Nothing done to SVG2 spec affects the SVG1 spec, and nothing done to inkscape's construction file after svg2 is set as the last svg "standard" will affect svg2 after that.
The OP was simply saying that the functionality of inkscape should not be limited to things only covered by SVG2, which is already the case (it already contains awesome new features that will not make it into SVG2 [* i.e. mesh gradients])."

Which is excellent — and something I didn't really know. I didn't know the mesh gradients were non-standard. That's actually quite exciting because it shows a will to pull away from the bog that the standard has (seems to have) become.

I am aware of the save as standard SVG vs Inkscape SVG option. Yes, it's already quite "fuzzy".

Thanks,