On 11/30/06, Henning Lorenz <henning.lorenz@...2052...> wrote:
I discovered now the reason for the mismatch:
The problem is that inkscape takes the path AND its stroke width into account when processing a tile clone, i.e. the offset of the new rows and columns is not based on the centre of the line but on the outline of it which depends on the stroke width (see attached screen shot). However, to produce a pattern which is good for a patternfill it is necessary that this process is based only on the centre of the line, i.e. the offset of the new rows and columns is independent from stroke-width.
Why are you using both tile clones AND pattern fill? Won't one of them suffice?
(Screenshot: thin line results in small offset, thick line results in larger offset - take the grid as a reference; to make the pattern suitable for a fill pattern each line has to be place on the grid without offset)
For such a pattern, I would take a filled rectangle, not a stroke, and tile it when it's horizontal, then rotate the entire pattern. This would give you a seamless pattern.
We can provide a number of user setting for how the bounding box of an object is calculated: with or without stroke (currently with), with or without markers (currently with), with or without the blurred margin (currently without). Does anyone think it might be a good idea? I'd like to avoid the burden of supporting several different modes, but several people have requested the "without stroke" bboxes.
As for clipping, it's still relatively new, and may be poorly tested in combination with patterns etc. If you investigate the problem and submit a detailed bug report with sample files that would help a lot.