Am 27.07.2014 um 10:43 schrieb Andrey Repin:
Greetings, dunn!
[...]
All through the sample files, the shapes have xml like this, with two
calls to ellipses, rectangles, circles:
[...]
I really don't even see how the sample files get a thick line from this,
since stroke-width:0.1 gives a hairline and the radii are the same in
both the calls.
Is there a reason to make shapes the first way as opposed to the second?
This is a deficiency of Dia's shape exporter.
Actually these are two more general deficiencies. The one concerning the
double rendering is tackled with the development version, see e.g.:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/dia/commit/?id=5978d9f58914198397cf353d0ff517cb6ae528b8
I've already optimized some of the exisiting shape files to avoid these -
always unnecessary - double drawing elements. See e.g.:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/dia/commit/?id=4aad6da7502ade47817ba289b3e9650e913e097d
But there are still a lot of shapes with Dia which would benefit from some
proofreading and cleanup;)
The second one is the magic involved in custom shape editable line width
with custom shapes. It has nothing to do with the renderer export (here
shape export) but is a not fully documented convention in place since the
introduction of the custom shape objects IIRC. See:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/dia-list/2008-July/thread.html#00084
I'm either make shapes by hands (if shape is simple enough, or if I need
precise results), or proof-read and cleanup the shape after export (if shape
is a complex/compound object).
Adjusting custom shapes after export is always a good idea. But as I said
not all shapes included with Dia got enough of it, yet.
-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it. -- Dilbert
_______________________________________________
dia-list mailing list
dia-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq
Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
