[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]
RE: [XaraXtreme-dev] Re: SVG import
- From: "Charles Moir" <CharlesM@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:08:30 +0100
- Subject: RE: [XaraXtreme-dev] Re: SVG import
OK so arcs will have to be supported then.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Wuerthner
> Sent: 03 August 2006 13:51
> To: dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [XaraXtreme-dev] Re: SVG import
> In message
> "Charles Moir" <CharlesM@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If arcs aren't produced in the real world then I wouldn't
> worry about
> > it. But if can be, from say Illustrator, CorelDRAW or
> Inkscape, then
> > we will have to cope with them.
> Inkscape uses arcs for circles/ellipses and open arc objects.
> An ellipse, for instance, is represented as two arcs, instead
> of four Béziers as we do it.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Wuerthner
> >> Sent: 03 August 2006 09:25
> >> To: dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [XaraXtreme-dev] Re: SVG import
> >> In message <44D13CED.60402@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sandro Sigala <sandro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > The SVG paths parser currently doesn't handle arcs, witch
> >> were defined
> >> > in SVG 1.1 but not in SVG 1.2 (I noticed this in the past,
> >> but while
> >> > referencing to the SVG 1.2 specification I didn't recall).
> >> Removing an element in a later version of a standard would be an
> >> extremely unusual thing to do and I cannot find any evidence of SVG
> >> 1.2 not containing arcs.
> >> Which 1.2 specification did you use? As far as I can see, there is
> >> only an early draft of the SVG 1.2-FULL specification and that is
> >> defined to be an addendum to the final 1.1 spec, so all
> 1.1 elements,
> >> including arcs, are automatically defined in SVG 1.2-FULL.
> >> Alternatively, there is a more mature draft of the SVG 1.2-TINY
> >> specification, which does not include arcs, but that is not
> >> surprising because SVG-TINY is a deliberately cut-down version of
> >> SVG, e.g., for mobile devices.
> >> Martin