I'm not convinced that the default_scale attribute is the right way to > > go about handling the scaling issues. It means that whereas the > > super-shape ignores the absolute scale and just uses the coordinates as > > relative coordinates in a 2x2 cm space, the sub-shape actually uses the > > units of the SVG, modified by the default_scale. This is confusing: The > > coordinates of the super-shape and the sub-shape are now interpreted in > > different ways, one of which is controlled by a "default_scale" > > attribute whose meaning is not clear from context. If the default_scale > > was on the main shape, it would be less confusing and at the same time > > close a long-standing bug. > > Another problem with the default_scale is that it's defined relative to > > something that's not in the shape definition, namely the unit system. > > mm might be default in many locals (I frankly don't know, and would > > rather not have to remember), but how would the shape be rendered in the > > > > US, where inches or suchlike are the default? > > >
In my defense, the DEFAULT_WIDTH and DEFAULT_HEIGHT are defined as 2.0, "whatever the current unit system in use". Meaning, that custom shapes default to 2x2cm in europe and 2x2in. in the US. >From this follows that the "default_scale", which is also taken as "just" a scalar value, adapts to the current unit system in use as well. So if not a clean/nice solution, there is no descrepancy between meaning of the values with respect to the unit system of either the super-shape and the sub-shape. However, I'm investigating whether I can get rid of the dreaded DEFAULT_WIDTH/ DEFAULT_HEIGHT, or at least have them only be applied as a fall back (to avoid functional regression). cheers, Marcel
_______________________________________________ Dia-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
