> This sounds doable (I didn't -really- want to work on my thesis this
> week) but I'm not entirely clear how the libraries would work, I guess.
> Would they be a valid SVG document where each top-level group
> represented an item ?
Not quite, each item in the library will be defined exactly as it is
in a normal document, i.e. inside <defs>. Take a look at
> 1. Keep a copy of each library object used by a document in each
> document itself.
> Thus, the document will be editable, but you could
> (say) open a library and "update" the linked objects.
Updating a symbol from the library is not implemented but can be done
easily using inkscape:stock_id attribute for matching.
> is that you don't have to find / access the library to edit the lib
> object -- it essentially keeps a local copy. The downside is the
> explicit update step.
Yes, and this is the only way to make SVG editable/viewable outside of
> 2. Keep the library files separate. This means that to view/edit a
> document, you'd need to be able to access the libray, and the document
> would have to know how to find the library.
I'm not sure this option is workable with SVG.
> exist as Free Software. Can I buy the developers a beer?
Sure, if you can catch us - we're scattered around the globe :)
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:11:52 +1000, Trent Buck <fubarbaz@...> wrote:
> <g transform="...">
> <image source="....svg" />
Perfectly possible, except that you lose vector editability and
resolution-independence of the linked images.
On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 23:39, bulia byak wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:11:52 +1000, Trent Buck <fubarbaz@...> wro=
> > <g transform=3D"...">
> > <image source=3D"....svg" />
> > </g>
> Perfectly possible, except that you lose vector editability and
> resolution-independence of the linked images.
Huh? Embedded SVG images, per the spec, remain resolution-independent
(i.e. they're rendered as vectors as part of the including document, not
Editability would be strictly an issue of Inkscape -- we could certainly
do it, though there would be some issues to think through carefully.
> > > <g transform="...">
> > > <image source="....svg" />
> > > </g>
> Huh? Embedded SVG images, per the spec, remain resolution-independent
> (i.e. they're rendered as vectors as part of the including document, not
Ah, sure. I just didn't notice that it was not bitmaps that were
embedded. I think we only support <image> for bitmaps; never tried it
for embedding SVGs.