Inkscape 0.47 Released 225
derrida writes "After over a year of intensive development and refactoring, Inkscape 0.47 is out. This version of the SVG-based vector graphics editor brings improved performance and tons of new features, including: timed autosave, Spiro splines, auto-smooth nodes, Eraser tool, new modes in Tweak tool, snapping options toolbar & greater snapping abilities, new live path effects (including Envelope), over 200 preset SVG filters, new Cairo-based PS and EPS export, spell checker, many new extensions, optimized SVG code options, and much more. Additionally, it would be wrong to not mention the hundreds of bug fixes. Check out the full release notes for more information about what has changed, enjoy the screenshots, or just jump right to downloading your package for Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X." We've been following the progress of Inkscape for years (2006, 2005, 2004).
Re:0.47 (Score:5, Informative)
Their roadmap [inkscape.org] states that the 1.0 milestone is "full SVG 1.1 support".
Re:how it is different from.. (Score:2, Informative)
gimp is a rasterized graphics editor. Inkscape do vector graphics.
Re:Brilliant piece of software (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Brilliant piece of software (Score:4, Informative)
If you think Firefox renders SVGs correctly, you aren't doing much with your SVGs.
Neither gecko (Firefox) nor Webkit have SVG rendering thats useful for more than basic shapes. They lack support for large swaths of the standard.
You're response is only valid if you use Inkscape to draw basic flowcharts and smiley faces, do anything complex, Inkscape, Firefox and Webkit are severely lacking.
They claim test suite compliance, if so than thats a major step to not sucking, but only if it actually saves standard SVGs. It traditionally hasn't. Its default format uses its own extensions, and its standard svg format lacked features for no apparent reason. Hell, the Inkscape extended SVG format just seems to give you some of the standard SVG features, but using custom extensions.
So great, Inkscape SVGs are renderable in Inkscape, and really simple ones will work in Firefox and Opera. Whoopdee-doo.
Do you accept a web browser with HTML 2.0 support now days? I don't.
Photoshop has a real SVG rendering engine built in, it will load files that Inkscape doesn't have a chance in hell of loading.
If you're argument is that Inkscape's lack of standard support is OK because its trying to embrace and extend the format and break compatibility with other software (again, not some extremely simple drawing) just so it can be 'the one to rule them all', then Inkscape can go fuck itself. I use SVG because it IS A STANDARD that IS SUPPORTED PROPERLY by at least SOME software. I'm not complaining about not supporting the ENTIRE standard, no one does. What it does support and how it saves on the other hand, I expect to be proper.
Again, if you think Word HTML is acceptable, you and I have completely definitions of standard. I like my 'standard' files to actually follow the definition of the standard, not someone elses own variation.
I find it amusing that your arguing that Inkscape breaking standards is acceptable because MS did it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Why even claim the SVG file format? Just call it what it is. Why have a 'Inkscape SVG' and a 'Standard SVG' save option? Why not just call the Inkscape version the Inkscape file format and stop trying to piggy back on the SVG standard. Why introduce confusion to others?
Re:Still no coloured line-ends? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Some suggestions (Score:3, Informative)
Checkout Apache FOP. The future you're looking for above is available in SVG files using flowed text.
Of course the problem is still a lack of editors with flow support. They all want to flow it themselves and manually position the text for some retarded freaking reason.
Re:Some suggestions (Score:1, Informative)
Check out Scribus too.
Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)
I just tried it too, it still didn't succeed in correctly importing the files (close, but no cigar).
Note the word there though – import, not open. It imports and exports pdfs (possibly with data loss), it does not save and open them (which it claims to).
Yes I filed a bug report, a long time ago, and yes, I contribute to Open Source projects.
As a old RiscOS users (Score:3, Informative)
It's kind of in the family.....
!Draw -> ArtWorks -> Xara -> Inkscape (interface heavily influenced by Xara)
Pushing it I know, but nice to think of it like that, so I do!
Batik fanboy? (Score:2, Informative)
You, sir, have apparently never seen a Frontpage 2000 output, otherwise you wouldnt draw such a nonsense parallel to inkscape.
I saw a lot of frontpage HTML output and i work with Inkscape too, and the comparison does NOT fit in any meaningfull way.
The most visible difference being Frontpage using custom markup IN ADDITION to standard HTML that was crucial to render the page as seen in Frontpage.
Inkscape uses a SUBSET of standard SVG and its output is does not contain markup needed to convey the visual information (There is some additional markup in the Inkscape .svg file format using separate namespace used only to persist additionla editor information)
Get your facts right pls. before you post.
And finaly, from the apparent emotional style of your post, i am not sure why you accuse other being fanboys, while displaying evident signs of being rigid batik fanboy yourself.
have a good day
mmm
Re:Brilliant piece of software (Score:3, Informative)
Just out of curiosity, I opened the native Inkscape (0.47) version of a logo I'm working on in Firefox (Linux, v3.5.5). It rendered beautifully. Same with Opera v9.63. The art has ~50 paths with more than 600 nodes each (largest ones around 3000 nodes each), transparency and blur filter effects, linear color blends and I'm pretty sure I've got a couple of radial blends in there as well. So, what's all this f*cking nonsense about "really simple ones will work in Firefox and Opera?"
* * * * *
I'd horse whip you, if I only had a horse."
—Groucho Marx
Re:Brilliant piece of software (Score:2, Informative)
Not sure where this rant came from; you've plainly found the save "Standard SVG" option; if you want to use that, then use it. I happen to love that Inkscape's native format is based on an open standard so I can easily see what's going on in their native format. Even if you hadn't found the "Standard SVG" option your post demonstrates that you have now idea what's going on with XML; I generally use the "Inkscape SVG" files outside of Inkscape rather than exporting "Standard SVG" because, being based on XML, it really doesn't effect any application that doesn't support the Inkscape extensions. In other words; any program that has a problem with displaying "Inkscape SVG" doesn't just have a broken SVG renderer; it has a broken XML parser.
On the subject of support of the standard; I can only think of one big deficiency in 0.46 (I've not yet installed 0.47), and it is shared with every renderer I've encountered except Batik. As long Inkscape's support is competetive with every browser out there, I see little reason to complain (obviously I'd like better support, but I see no reason to bitch on this level about it).