On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, bulia byak wrote:
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:43:41 -0300 From: bulia byak <buliabyak@...155...> Reply-To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] cleaner markup SVG ellipse rect polygon?
On 6/24/05, Alan Horkan <horkana@...3...> wrote:
that Convert Object to Path doesn't actually convert anything.) I realise the Inkscape ellipse supports more functionality than can be represented by an ellipse
Cleaner markup is simply easier to work with in other tools, and given my limited programming skills and the dearth of tools out there my primary tools is a text editor.
Not only that. At least two more reasons:
- <ellipse> etc. can't have markers, only <path> can
(markers are arrowheads and other line decorations right?)
I already acknowledged there would be some limitations but I was hoping things could be changed so that Inkscape would only step up from ellipse to path when necessary.
A single ellipse to represent a circle produces much smaller cleaner and more efficient markup than trying to represent it inaccurately as a series of points on a path.
I dont believe it is impossible but are you sure is it really as widly impractical as you are suggesting it would be?
- you can't attach text to <ellipse> etc, only to <path>
(grouping as a workaround? I'll have to take a look at how this works and see if there is a plausible way it could be faked)
So using these tags internally by Inkscape is really out of the question. These functionality limitations are quite serious and, what's especially bad, would look arbitrary to users.
I'm not advocating any user visible changes but rather that Inkscape only steps up to paths when needed by those features rather than using Paths everywhere which seems rather out of step with Inkscapes goal of fully supporting SVG. (I'll have to look closer and see if Inkscape is any good at roundtripping documents. If I can create the clean markup I want and not have Inkscape obliterate it that might be enough).
Besides, switching between a shape tag and <path> would make the shapes code significantly more complex. Currently the only shape that still uses a "native" tag is rectange that uses <rect>, but I plan to switch it to <path> when I have some free time.
It didn't in my sample document. Rect can do rounded rectangles so I would be interested to know why you feel it is necessary, I would have thought it would be the ideal candidate for using the standard SVG markup.
However if you need these tags in your SVG, it's a good idea for an extension.
"Need" is negotiable. I prefer to have markup I can keep clean and edit in a text editor occasionally (final touchups) without wanting to tear my hair out.
I am used to another SVG application one of the few upsides of which is the clean SVG it produces. This is one factor keeping me from using Inkscape more often.
If there exists an "SVG Tidy" program I'd love to know about it.
Writing a script that would convert, where possible, Inkscape shapes to SVG shape tags should not be too difficult. You can file a RFE for it.
Sound difficult for me to do ... I'll see about filing that RFE anyway though.
Sincerely
Alan Horkan
Inkscape http://inkscape.org Abiword http://www.abisource.com Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/ Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org
Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/