Re: My proposal (Was: Shapes layout proposal)

[John Palmieri <johnp martianrock com>]

Andre, that is exactly what we want to add.

Ok, well here is a new proposal that should make most people happy for the
time being.  All the SVG extensions will be handled by a new shape code
and will not effect the core of dia.  I think the SVG stuff is handled by
the generic shape.  Am I correct to say that?  Once speed and layout
issues are worked out (I'll fire up my old pentium 100 to do tests) and we
get the nod from the maintainers we will integrate it with the core.  For
now since a bunch of people seem interested in this, it would be nice if
the powers that be would grant us a branch on the CVS tree where we can
work on our code without messing with the core code.  Also, a separate
mailing list would be nice so we don't clutter the main mailing list,
unless this is where the maintainers feel we should keep our discussions.

I will have initial DTD's soon.  I will start with a couple of widgets and
we will expand from there.

-J5

Andre Kloss wrote:

> Hi folks.
>
> I think there are exactly 3 extensions for the custom XML shapes that
> would be extremely useful when it comes to extending this shapes'
> usability:
>
> 1. Abstract from textboxes. XMLshapes should be able to contain
> multiple sub-shapes (As long as they're rectangle-shaped). One simple
> shape could be a textbox.
>
> 2. Another quite simple shape could be an array of subshapes. This
> could be horizontal or vertical. An array should save the order of
> its contained shapes, and have always some room to enter another
> shape.
>
> 3. Last, but not least: Every shape should be resizable (At least most
> shapes. A textbox has it size and basta). If some shape is containd by
> another shape, the containing shape should also be resized in this
> process. This would need some pointer structure to let each shape know
> it's "parents".
> And the minimum size of a shape (in x as well as in y-axis) can be
> determined by the maximum of the size minimum size of its subshapes
> times the relation my:size/sub:size. This would also need some pointer
> list to all "children".
>
> As you can see, the first two proposed statements are about
> containedness, the last is about the behaviour of shapes. If you do
> not agree with me on this points, feel free to start another flamewar,
> but I'll appreciate every help I can get since this features would
> solve some of the nastier problems I have with my diploma thesis and I
> still don't quite know where to start coding.
>
> I'll be glad to write some DTDs if needed. And C-Code. And
> documentation.
>
> cu Andre
> --
> Tolerance rulez, everything else sux! -- Andre Kloss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dia-list mailing list
> Dia-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list