On 4/22/05, MoNKi <lsmonki-basura@...637...> wrote:
- When I export a PS, I want a PS too, but if this PS dosn't support
all svg features, at least I want an aproximation of it. I don't suggest a full "bitmapped" PS, only bitmaps instead of transparent areas and this bitmaps inside clipping paths
This makes little sense - if some part of EPS is not vector, it's as bad as if the whole file was bitmap. Moreover the seams between the vector and bitmap parts will look ugly (I'm speaking from experience, as I've seen such PS files produced by other programs).
- EPS files aren't as dead and also has this problem.
EPS are still used for simple graphics such as TeX figures, but these normally don't require transparency, so EPS works fine in these cases. If you're trying to use a format which is simply not appropriate for your graphic, you have only yourself to blame.
Is only an opinion. The users shouldn't have to know the capabilities of PS because usually they are artist, not programmers. They do a design, and then export it as EPS, svg, png... without knowing all the formats in the world.
An artist need not know the capabilities of EPS, you're right. However neither the artist need to know about the existence of EPS at all. The artist has got a tool whose native format (SVG) is perfectly adequate for everything that the tool is capable of. If the artist wants to move his/her art to another tool and that tool does not support SVG, blame that tool, not us. SVG is an open standard supported by most decent software these days.
Anyway, this is not to say that I'm in principle against this. If someone wants to implement embedding bitmaps into PS/EPS, please proceed. I'll gladly accept this feature into Inkscape so long as it's optional. I just don't want to spend my own time working on it.