Nazi, Hitler.

There, I've done it. This religious argument has reached the end of any meaningful contribution it might make to the sum total of human knowledge.


Typed laboriously on my Galaxy S2

On 02/09/2014 4:19 AM, <> wrote:
Send Inkscape-user mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Inkscape-user digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Inkscape and Uniconvertor (Ken Springer)
   2. Re: Keyboard shortcut for the "edit       object"functionality. (Brynn)
   3. Re: Inkscape and Uniconvertor (Mark Crutch)
   4. Re: Inkscape and Uniconvertor (Steve Litt)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:37:28 -0600
From: Ken Springer <>
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Inkscape and Uniconvertor
To: Inkscape User Community <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

On 9/1/14 11:01 AM, john Culleton wrote:

> Why does the OP prefer jpeg to png? Now what I
> would like is the facility to save pdf in PDF
> X/1-a:2001  format for printers. But I can do
> that conversion in Scribus as needed.
LOL   OT for a moment.  Over the years, I've noticed things like this
seem to get lost in a long thread.  I've probably answered it twice, at
least.  <G>  In the mood of good humor...

In some cases, the PNG is simply not necessary.  And in the case of the
original post, PNG is definitely not needed.

Believe it or not, not every one out there wants to waste storing
unneeded data on their hard drive, in this case a lossless file format
w/transparency when that information is simply not needed. When you have
only X amount of free space, why store Y number of PNGs when may
possibly save 3Y JPG files?

Kind of like having to store a 5 gallon container of paint when you only
need 1 gallon.



Message: 2
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:24:47 -0600
From: "Brynn" <>
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Keyboard shortcut for the "edit
To: <>
Message-ID: <C2F484763B0D42768B2C0F15C90AF511@JillsLaptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you looking for f2 or n, to engage the Node tool?

  From: Dipak Chaudhari
  Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 7:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Keyboard shortcut for the "edit object"functionality.


   I can invoke the "edit object" functionality by double clicking on an object. I would like to bind a key to this functionality. Is this possible?

  About the Edit object functionality :
  For paths, double clicking switches to Node tool; for shapes, to corresponding shape tool; for text, to Text tool. For groups, double clicking performs the "Enter group" command.



  Slashdot TV.
  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.


  Inkscape-user mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


Message: 3
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:40:55 +0100
From: Mark Crutch <>
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Inkscape and Uniconvertor
To: Inkscape User Community <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> Exactly.  Which is one route to product improvement, if you want to
> improve it.  I think the "UNIX" philosophy will prevent any software
> created to become a leader and success.  Providing things users want,
> whether developers want it or not, is what it takes to be successful.
> Otherwise, it's just a hobby.  The philosophy may be the biggest impediment
> to being seriously considered by the majority of computer users, and why
> the software created under the philosophy will never seriously put a dent
> in commercial software.

The Unix philosophy is for each application to do one thing, but do it
well. It's the "do it well" part that's important. Yes, Inkscape could
support JPEG or a myriad other formats. But each format has options,
settings, metadata and more. I'd rather have one conversion application
that handles all the options on all the formats well, rather than have
every application on my system reimplementing the code time and time again,
each with a slightly different UI and list of supported features.

You would prefer the latter, it seems. That's fine, you're welcome to use
monolithic software that works in that way. If you want Inkscape to work
like that, you're also welcome to contribute code to make it do so. The
devs don't have to accept it, but then you're also welcome to fork the code
and create your own monolithic application. Or pay someone else to do it,
if you're not a developer.

No, I don't really expect you to do any of that, but you could in
principle. You can do it because Inkscape is Free Software, and as such
it's developed by a group of people who *have* contributed code, time, or
money to make it do what they want. For many of them it *is* "just a
hobby", and that's not a bad thing.

I do find it interesting that you spend half your time worrying about
people with old computers that don't have much disk space, memory or
processing power, and the other half wanting monolithic applications that
duplicate each others' functionality.

> Standards will always be a moving target.  There's no way around that.
> But from what I see, JPG is currently the most popular bitmapped format.
> Not PNG.  Granted, PNG has some advantages, but are the advantages needed
> by most users?  I'd bet not.  Just like a Kenworth has advantages over a
> Ford F-150, not everyone needs a Kenworth.  <G>

Perhaps you should check out the Inkscape forum and see how often people
complain that their images are being exported with a white background
(because they've used "Save As Cairo PNG" rather than "Export Bitmap"). No,
not everyone needs transparency, but I think it's a more popular request
than you might realise. Transparency is often needed in DTP applications,
but even more so for web pages, icons in applications, sprites in games and
so on - all of which are frequently created using Inkscape.

> There's been transparency of one sort or another for a mighty long time.
>> Before PNG, and before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck, if you want
>> to go back far enough we were engraving images into plates of metal,
>> coating them in ink, and pressing them onto the page. And you know what...
>> they included transparency! Any part where the ink didn't appear was
>> implicitly transparent.
>   But, how much was transparency supported in computer software?

It's been well supported by professional DTP software for many, many years,
if only in the form of applying clipping paths to images. Alpha channels
are a more recent addition, but I imagine that professional DTP
applications have been supporting them for at least 15 years, if not
longer. I'm no software historian though, so I'm happy to be proved wrong
on that front.

But does it really matter whether or not it was supported 20 years ago? Any
DTP application worth mentioning that's been released in the past decade
supports it, which is why I suggested that an application without it is

To me, broken is something that doesn't work, not something that's missing.

Tomayto, tomahto. As far as I'm concerned "missing" standard bits of
functionality results in something that "doesn't work". Perhaps it's not
"broken" by one particular dictionary definition, but it is in the
colloquial sense that the term is used with respect to software. Feel free
to mentally replace "broken" with "is missing some functionality that I
consider to be vital" in all my emails though ;)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


Message: 4
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 14:16:55 -0400
From: Steve Litt <>
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Inkscape and Uniconvertor
Message-ID: <20140901141655.7e61ed13@mydesq2.domain.cxm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:27:59 -0600
Ken Springer <> wrote:

> On 9/1/14 3:25 AM, Mark Crutch wrote:
> >
> >>     You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop
> >> PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric
> >>     formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be
> >> better to export one or two formats and allow the user to use
> >> another application to convert to whatever they want?
> >     You missed my point, Mark.  Moving to another application to do
> >     the conversion takes time.  I want to minimize the time I spend,
> >     not spend the extra time.
> >
> >
> > No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and another application
> > to convert is too much, so you want JPEG export built in.

> Reality?  This is no different than wanting a different feature in a
> car you buy, or on your smartphone, or on your TV.  Why should it be
> different for software?  And you've acknowledged that others would
> like other formats, so it's not like I'm the lone voice in the woods.


You're beating a dead horse, and in a few more go-arounds people are
going to start getting mean. Inkscape isn't a car, a smartphone, or a
TV. It isn't a product: There's no profit motive. I don't think
Inkscape developers even care how many users use it: If you like it,
use it, otherwise don't. The feature you've asked for is already doable
with a shellscript or 15 seconds of your time, and as a result, nobody
else cares about that feature.

If Inkscape doesn't meet your criteria, pick software that does. If
you can't afford it, I guess you have some hard choices to make, but
keep in mind that any of the Inscape developers can sell their
programming time for $70.00/hr, so *they're* the ones who get to decide
what they put in and what they leave out, and so far I think they've
done an excellent job.

Your initial question was quite thought-provoking, but it's been asked
and answered several times, and if you keep asking and arguing, you'll
be labelled with the infamous T word. Best to let it go, and if you'd
prefer different vector graphic creation software, by all means use it!


Steve Litt                *
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance


Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.


Inkscape-user mailing list

End of Inkscape-user Digest, Vol 100, Issue 3