On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Donn Ingle wrote:
On 22 April 2017 at 14:24, David Lang <david@...2429...> wrote:
Actually, Donn Ingle is proposing that Inkscape no longer produce SVG, so he is proposing that many existing use cases will be thrown out.
I am not so proposing.
Here it is: SVG appears to be dying. Assuming this is so, I propose to continue SVG within the Inkscape community (at least)
well, if you are not proposing abandoning SVG, then why keep arguing the point that it may be dying? What's the difference between "SVG is not dying" and "SVG is dying, but we should continue to use it"?
*and* take the chance to update Inkscape (at least) so that its many design holes are filled.
updating Inkscape can happen regardless.
This new SVG would in no way break the older standard, however this is achieved.
creating a SVG derivitive is a bad idea, in spite of what you think, there is a lot of stuff that works with the output of inkscape.
And what exactly needs to change in SVG to implement the new features you want in Inkscape? Especially when you consider the need to be portable across all the platforms that Inkscape is used on (even if you ignore all the platforms that the resulting svg is used on)
embedded python isn't an option unless you are going to embed a python interpreter as well. I'm not going to go back and dig up all the prior posts to find other suggestions, but you would be far better off just proposing new features and improvements rather than starting off by claiming that SVG is dying and therefor we should accept new features. Justify eacy feature by itself.
David Lang