On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Cédric Gémy <radar.ma...@free.fr> wrote:
> There is no non-sense that Inkscape supports some bitmap operations and
> also no nonsense that a bitmap applications support some vector
> possibilities simply because in many project, you simply need to mix
> vector and bitmap datas.
> a logo on a photo for example : and if the logo can be kept vector
> that's much better. if the photo don't need any modification, yo ucan
> simply load it into Inkscape (except that inkscape doesn't deal with
> import resolution), but in the other case, it will be more comfortable
> to open the vector logo in Gimp.
This is certainly true. I think this level of vector support is
something that will only come with a GEGL based fileformat, to make
the rendering and manipulation of objects more flexible.
For example, the vector-layers implementation generates pixels on a
layer, which is kind of incorrect -- a vector-layer is more like a
view on a particular vector object, not a layer with nominally static
content. The DAG-based architecture of GEGL should allow this kind of
operation to be represented in a much more sensible, and somewhat more
> Anyway, gimp works on vector layers since a long time
Not exactly. Paths have been available for a long time; however vector
layers were implemented by Henk Boom a year or so ago but haven't been
merged into the main GIMP source tree yet.
So vector layers are not yet available.
> way. SVG import has been improved in the last realease and will go on.
> Just a question : text tool is a vector tool. Would you tell gimp don't
> need it ?
Being capable of vector operations (GIMP) is very different from being
fundamentally built around vector operations (Inkscape and the SVG
It's not that vector operations cannot be useful to GIMP, it's simply
that GIMP is orientated in the opposite direction, and because of this
difference, it requires great care when deciding whether to implement
further vector features.
There is a description of C++ "C++: an octopus made by nailing extra
legs onto a dog"
That is the kind of risk involved when you attach things so
fundamentally different to each other.
I think one of the reasons that vector layers haven't been merged yet
is this kind of issue -- the implementation can still seem a little
hackish and awkward from the user's point of view.
(of course, for all I know we'll end up using the GEGL vector renderer
along with a GEGL-oriented fileformat, which may render much of the
vector-layers code obsolete anyway)
Gimp-user mailing list