User talk:Dreftymac/Docs/ImageDisclaimer

SVG ImageNode

Hi, I'd like to know why you use so much namespaces ? Couldn't you use plain SVG features ? --Fenring 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fenring, yes you are right, there are a lot of namespaces in there. I could clean some of it out, but the problem is some of that is used by InkScape, and if any other Wikipedia editors want to edit the files or extend them for use somewhere else, taking out the InkScape namespaces may make it more difficult for them to work with the files. Also, for the file-info metadata, I chose to use YAML instead of XML, because YAML simply requires less typing and is easier to read (IMO). The trade-off, of course, is that it makes the files a little harder to work with for those who just want to edit them by hand. InkScape, however, is free and Open Source, so I figured the trade-off was acceptable.dr.ef.tymac 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Namespaces and metadatas are ok, as far as they don't influence the rendering (I thought it was the reason of the font difference I write about below) and are only there to make editing more easy. Though, InkScape seems to add a lot of useless things. I think it would be good to clean the files a bit (why the transform on every shapes for example). No matter how open the source of any editor is, I don't want to be stuck with it. Especially for an open standard. Wouldn't the file be better if easily readable by any reader rather than by one free program ? --Fenring 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do they look different in other renderers ? Apparently the font (courrier new) is not the same width as wikipedia's. The text overflows in Firefox and Opera. --Fenring 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a bug in the way some fonts are rendered in the browsers. I've seen that also, and I have not pinned down the precise cause for this very noticeable difference. dr.ef.tymac 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can add a clip path equal to the page, to prevent the text to overflow... --Fenring 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it normal that the bottom gradient (representing the shade of the page, I reckon) is not scalable ? --Fenring 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no; not that I know of. All of the elements should scale just fine as there are no rasterized components to any of the images.dr.ef.tymac 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I think. Sorry about that.--Fenring 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can see now why the gradients don't scale : they are made of three paths (path1505, path1538 and path1543). These make the three steps of gray. I'd rather use a feGaussianBlur filter. I'll try to take some time for doing all that. Maybe I'll send you a smaller version of this file as an example. Thank you anyway for considering my "keep-it-simple mania" ;-) Have a nice day --Fenring 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok here it is with an "improved" shade (I didn't dare updating the real image). I changed linearGradient1507 a bit. I replaced the 3 paths by one with a filter applied to it. Now it's fully scalable. What do you think ? --Fenring 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks great! I've gone ahead and updated the file and added your change to the revision history in the source file. Thanks for your *excellent* work, it looks much nicer. dr.ef.tymac 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Next steps will be : to get rid of the transforms, to get rid of decimals, add a clip to the text, possibly add a stretch, ... to every svg of the serie. --Fenring 09:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is something for me to consider, Fenrig

I think I understand your basic point. Although InkScape is an open-source software that anyone can get for free, it does add a lot of "stuff" to SVG code.

I have tried cleaning up the code a bit for the new file Image:CSS.svg. If I can do all ImageNode series images like this, it might help to clean up the SVG without ruining it for people who depend on InkScape. dr.ef.tymac 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Alik Nadir 1 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Cross-browser svg

I see from the discussions above that you're aware of the inconsistent rendering of fonts for all of your ImageNode series. However, as one of your images is in use as the primary image on the SVG article, I thought it might be prudent to ensure that this one at least looks consistent to everyone, so I uploaded a "fixed" version. Unfortunately my fix makes the file enormous, so I don't think it should be permanent.

You're more familiar with the methods you've used to make these icons, so I figure you'd be better equipped to figure out what's wrong with them (or as what's wrong with the various browsers' svg implementations), but I'll have a go at figuring it out myself if I've time. lucideer 3 December 2008 (UTC)