Talk:Inkscape/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mention to it being free software

Resolved

The issue I'll mention for this article appears in most/all the articles about free software, and is the following: how (whether) to mention that they are free software in the intro. I think that a piece of software being FS is highly notable, with the strong polarization existing nowadays between free and proprietary camps. Don't know about other readers, but when I start reading an article about a program, the first thing I check is whether it is free software or not. So, I think the inclusion of the datum in the intro is justified. The question is exactly how.

Right now, the intro starts: "Inkscape is a vector graphics editor application released under the GNU General Public License.". This sounds forced and weird to me. It is much more natural to say: "Inkscape is a free software vector graphics editor application". However, some might say that it gives too much prominence to the "free software" part, so a compromise could be the one featured some edits ago: make the last sentence in the intro be: "Released under the GNU General Public License, Inkscape is free software".

I'd like to reach a consensus on that, so that all FS articles could be formatted as agreed here, and settle a long standing issue. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a BIG argument a while back, it's in the archive.--Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I should know, as I made noticeable (in size, maybe not in quality) contributions to it. However, IIRC, the discussion was open source vs free software, and consensus was not clear, anyway. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the intro should read: "Inkscape is a free vector graphics editor application." Readers who are hip to the FS movement will know what it means, people who don't know but want more info will follow the link, and those who don't know or care will still realize that the software is available gratis. Feezo (Talk) 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DTR's mini-essay Here's what we know for sure: Inkscape is free-of-charge; Inkscape is open-source (as described on inkscape.org); Inkscape is released under the GNU General Public License According to the article, this is "a widely used free software license". So, I think the first line should be: Inkscape is open source, free software that is available free-of-charge. Hopefully, this keeps everybody happy without omitting anything important. Or, most likely, this will start up another argument. Hooray. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) And yes, "Inkscape is a free software vector graphics editor application" is ugly, but so are the big lists in the middle of the article. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are being sarcastic. Now, seriously, I think Feezo's proposition above is fine: "Inkscape is a free vector graphics editor application." — isilanes (talk|contribs) 18:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I do think Feezo's is better in that it is more concise and is easier to read. I'll change it to Feezo's suggestion, and if anybody objects they can do so here. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 15:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On freeness

Leaving the license to last and using unambiguous text to link to it is pretty standard on WP free software articles now. I'm changing this back to how it was in June. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Live trace feature?

Resolved

Does Inkscape have the "live trace" feature found in other graphic packages, like Adobe's Illustrator?

In "live trace," you load in a picture (like a drawing or picture), choose an object and trace it, and it converts the picture into a series of anchor points (like X, Y, Z points) so you can drag them around, scale them to fit, or otherwise reposition them. 198.177.27.23 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What is specifically "live" about it? Yes, you can trace a bitmap in Inkscape, and it gives you a path that you can edit as any other path, by moving "anchor points" (nodes) or in many other ways. Trapolator (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know. 198.177.27.24 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the link to download Inkscape?

Shouldn't it be at the beginning, in the version list, and in the External Links section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin chen2003 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind i found it. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_graphics_software

Shouldn't Inkscape be in this list? Can someone add it?

I've added it as suggested by the unsigned comment. You can add categories by including tags of the form "Category:Free graphics software" only in square brackets rather than quotes. Other vector graphics programs like Skencil already on that list so it seemed appropriate to add Inkscape. -- Horkana (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Irreconcilable Differences

On the sidebar:

Latest release 0.46 / 2008-3-24; 378 days ago

In the text:

As of 2009, Inkscape is under active development, with new features being added regularly.

Does 378 days of inactivity qualify as “active development?” —Kbolino (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the dates for the release history, I guess it does.—Kbolino (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

378 days since the last official release doesn't mean 378 days of inactivity. Inkscape is very actively developed; they just don't do official releases very often. --Zundark (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Kbolino, feel free to download the nightly builds. I think new builds just about every day qualify as active. 76.212.206.183 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Title image

Resolved

File:Inkscape0.45.png

I do not think this makes a good main image for this page. While it is a rather incredible use of vector graphics, and should certainly be noted, this is a highly complex illustration. Needless to say, I think most people use Inkscape to draw simple shapes and such (since most people do not know the SVG programming language) and something more like this or this (but with the current version, of course) would be more suited for such a purpose. -Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Most people didn't use Deluxe Paint to hand-draw pictures of the sarcophagus of Tutankhamen either, but it doesn't make it an inappropriate sample image. Inkscape is a professional-level SVG package; there's no requirement that the average reader be able to reproduce the contents of a sample work for it to be suitable. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. Other Wikipedia articles on software use advanced examples of use to illustrate the article. Alex McKee (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The image is appropriate if the artist actually used Inkscape to create it. [...less-than-polite commentary retracted by original author....]

Inkscape is a nice tool, but it is [not] "professional-level." It needs [more features]. 192.55.12.36 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The yellow car (by Konstantin Rotkevich) appears to have been made entirely in Inkscape. The XML would look quite different if it had merely been imported from some other app and then resaved in Inkscape.

If you could give some concrete examples of features that Inkscape is lacking, we could perhaps mention them in the article. The article ought to give some idea of what Inkscape can't do (that it might be expected to do), as well as what it can do. --Zundark (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia probably is not the right forum for posting feature requests. I made up a list of about thirty features and categories of features that I think would appear in a more professional tool. I'll try to find time to polish it up and send it to the developers by other means. 192.55.12.36 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Inkscape may lack powerful interoperability with Adobe formats, tools for viewing in CMYK or preparing for web, etc., but in terms of drawing tools it is very powerful. I use it in a professional capacity because I find Illustrator too bloated and difficult to draw what I want. 76.212.206.183 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Downloading it

Off-topic

Is it free, or do I have to buy it? How do I down load it in to my computer on line? Will it interfear with my exsisting GIMP program? --81.100.123.213 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is free. Just download the installer from their website and start the installation. Inkscape and GIMP are two separate programs that do two completely different things, so they won't interfere with one another. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you!--86.16.9.24 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The white & grey checker patterns

I've noticed that a lot of images on wikipedia feature objects with checkered backgrounds. These backgrounds seem to be recognized by Wikipedia (or are scripted through their filetype, .SVG) and are displayed as transparent when viewed on a page, so that only the object is visible. Is there a name for the process of doing this? I know it can be done with Inkscape since the program deals with scalable vector images, and I would like to know how I can do it.--Surfaced 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Checkered background indicates a transparency in that part of the image. This is not just on Wikipedia - packages like Paint Shop Pro and GIMP do the same. SVGs (I know ones created with Inkscape are) are generally created with a transparent background by default unless there is something non-transparent in the way.

I hope this helps - if not ask someone who actually knows what they are talking about. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Hexagon - slightly back-to-front: the checkerboard is added by the specific rendering engine where desired to denote that the region is actually transparent rather than, say, white. The process you generally describe (recognising and knocking out a color, not normally a pattern) is called chroma key. Within a lot of software, bitmap transparency for compositing was (and still is in places) achieved by using a particular shade of hot pink (so called `magic pink') that is chosen on the basis of being unlikely to appear in interface design, on account of its retina-searing nature. Eutactic (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

licensing

Off-topic

If Inkscape software is licensed under the General GPL license, does that mean the images become "free" when they are in Inkscape? In other words, if I make a video game using images from Inkscape, does that mean I lose the proprietary-ness of the content of those images? Sorry if I am not asking the question very well ... The article says "professionals" can use Inkscape, but if that means they have to give their stuff away from free, then it really isn't for "professionals" or is it somehow? I am of the understanding that the word professional means "you do it for money". Thanks for whatever info you may have on this because I am very confused. --75.93.124.96 (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I am not a lawyer. If you create an image you own the image, the software does not matter. Same way Microsoft does not own your Microsoft Word documents, and Oracle does not own documents you create using OpenOffice.org. The software license only really matters if you want to change the code of the program and distribute (to other people outside your company), it says that you must also include the code and allow them to make changes to the software the same way you were allowed to make changes. The GNU website includes lots of information about the General Public License (GPL) but unless you are a programmer that is unlikely to be important to you. You may already be using a lot of GPL software without realising it (Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Linux). There are lots of places where you can read more about this so I will keep it short. -- Horkana (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I realize now that this was a poor question. Thanks for fielding it, Horkana. Hopefully this will help someone else out. --75.93.124.96 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Resolved

Inkscape started development in 2003, as I write over five years ago! Sodipodi development seems to have ceased in 2004 and as a dead project it remains only notable as the project that went on to become Inkscape which is why I suggest merging it into this article. -- 194.125.126.52 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC) (proceeding comment also written by me -- Horkana (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Programs that are no longer maintained have a place in Wikipedia too, if they are historically or otherwise notable. Inkscape is a child of Sodipodi, but it is not "the next version of Sodipodi" (it has started as a fork and currently it is not even written in the same programming language - Sodipodi is in C and Inkscape in C++). Therefor a merger is not called for here. Eldar (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a wikipedia page for Gill though. The Sodipodi article is short (the intro is longer than the article itself, low quality (doesn't even explain what the word Sodipodi means "zig zag" iirc) and the points about OpenClipart and how Gill lead to Sodipodi lead to Inkscape could be (and mostly are) explained elsewhere -- Horkana (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Low quality is a reason to fix the article, not a reason to merge and remove it. The point about OpenClipart is in fact a reason to keep the article. It is currently AFAIK not explained elsewhere, and even if it were, a redundancy in an encyclopedia is not automatically bad. It is also important to give the history in its context. If there is more than one context, it should appear in both, and Sodipodi is certainly a context. I do not know the pre-Sodipodi history of Gill, and as far as I know it never made it even into an alpha product so probably that ripple in vector drawing history is indeed smaller than the prerequisite for an independent wikipedia article. Eldar (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - I now found where the influence on OpenClipart (correct link: Open Clip Art Library) is explained. But still my point on more than one context remains. Eldar (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If I thought sodipodi was notable enough to be worth fixing I'd consider it but it was a program with an ugly and awkward user interface that failed to make much of an impact beyond Linux users. This is going to sound harsh but the still limited success of Inkscape throws into sharp contrast how little progress Sodipodi actually managed to make. If we had a few more opinions we might be able to see some consensus. I'm not convinced the change of programming language is reason enough not to merge the articles (and the appropriate clipart information into the page for the OpenClipart Library). -- Horkana (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. Sodipodi never even made it to 1.0 and was never widely used. It does not meet WP notability standards. If it was proprietary it would have been speedy-deleted long ago. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Inkscape also did not (yet?) make it to 1.0, it is not uncommon for free software to go through many revisions before being "awarded" with the 1.0 number. If it were proprietary then it would have been something else with other influences and the topic of another discussion. The information indeed is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia (merged or unmerged) so the only remaining question is whether the correct place to put it is inside the Inkscape article. I believe that there is sufficient non-Inkscape information there to leave it where it is, but I welcome your opinion on this. Eldar (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point in the future Inkscape might become more important and this article will be notable only as a footnote but in keeping with good old volunteer traditions I'm happy enough to leave this article alone given so long as someone like Eldar is willing to keep an eye on it and maintain the article. The article should be pretty stable at this point and it is shame that Wikipedia doesn't offer better ways to protect stable and almost complete works. Version numbers aside I think we might be being overly generous to Sodipodi and Inkscape, and I do think most of the information could be merged with the Inkscape and OpenClipart articles but much more importantly I'm impressed by Eldar and think the article is in safe hands and I'll move on to other matters. -- Horkana (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd merge proposal

Merger was proposed for a second time by an unknown unregistered user User:24.202.35.184, May 11, 2010. This user should add to the discussion very soon or the tag I would remove the tag at the end of August 2010 if not sooner. I want to make it clear this was someone else.
I do think it would be better to merge but since Eldar continues to do the small amount of work needed to keep the Sodipodi article correct and up to date I am not going to create extra work in making a merge.
Weak Support -- Horkana (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Merge. I am in favour of merging the articles as well. Based on my limited understanding of both programs, it would seem that the biggest place in history Sodipodi played was being the basis for the Inkscape project. My opinion though is based on little, and thus I only say weak merge.Zell Faze (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Do not merge vide Eldar above. AshLin (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Do not merge Sodipodi has its place in history, and as long as its article is maintained, I would concur that it should remain seperate. But we may also want to look at other program forks and treat them all the same way, for consistency. Think of XFree86 and Xorg, for instance, which have seperate articles. Or, more recently, OpenSolaris and OpenIndiana, which someone opposed, fortunately unsuccessfully. However, keeping the content should always be more important that where we put it, so only if it was a case of merge or lose it, I would have to support merging. Tiger99 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Just to show how wonderful it is not. Try clicking to open the page and then click on the image again to see what happens to the (non-)arrows. Results will differ a bit in Firefox and in Explorer.

This is in part related to the primary source problem, I suppose: Inkscape is not likely to tell the bad part of the story, but boy are there bad parts. Take something as basic and simple as drawing an arrow. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an arrow in Inkscape. (...yes...) There are Bezier curves, that take a bit of practice to draw well in themselves and then there are loose arrowheads that you can fix to these Beziers to mimic an arrow. None of that is immediately apparent form the interface. (I had to google to find this out). Worse than that once you rotate the bezier-with-arrowhead (not: arrow) don't be surprised that only the Bezier gets rotated and the arrowhead does not. Of course you could generate your own arrow object, but I must admit I have not made my own arrows since the stone age, so I am a little rusty. And I also don't think that I should need to do something like that to produce the simplest of diagrams. Pretending such issues do not exist makes the article more a piece of propaganda than a balanced and neutral article. As it stands it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Jcwf (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you give a reliable source making these points? If not, it should IMHO not be in the article, since that's original research. The image to the right shows a bug in librsvg (the software Wikipedia/Commons uses to render its SVGs), which is unrelated to Inkscape, so I don't get your point. BTW, for drawing diagrams with arrows and the like, software such as Dia, LibreOffice, graphviz or others may indeed be more appropriate, depending on what you want to do - Inkscape is a general-purpose SVG editor and not necessarily the best choice for every special case. darkweasel94 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As you have not answered after almost two weeks, I am removing the neutrality dispute tag. If you have any further concerns (if it's possible, supported by reliable sources), feel free to add it again. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What you are experiencing reflects the way that the SVG graphics file format handles arrowheads. The Inkscape user interface should shield you from these arcane details, but could be it does not. Another problem is that programs that render the SVG file format are buggy. For instance when you upload an SVG image on wikimedia commons, it renders png(?) form images from the SVG. This rendering is buggy, and results in arrowheads not being properly placed, shadings not being done correctly, text rendering in incorrect fonts or sizes, and other problems. So problems people see may not be in Inkscape, but in the other programs that render the SVG files that are produced. Not to say Inkscape couldn't use improvement. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard to Use?

I have found that the Inkscpae on my computer is very difficult to use. The only way I can get a picture to show up is if I save the picture as a word document or something like that, then open it in Inkscape. Maybe there should be something on the article that helps people use the program. "Nothing else matters" 15:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic

There's no difficulty opening images in Inkscape. It's hard to say what you're doing wrong, as you don't say what you're doing. In any case, it's not really appropriate to cover such things in the article, and there's a guide book in the external links. --Zundark 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) If all you need is help, WP:RD/C. --Kjoonlee 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I have to agree that this is hard to use and/or buggy. As an example, when I go to type text, it defaults to Baskerville (probably because of something that I did), but when I actually draw the box, it changes to Bitstream Vera Sans. When I go to change the text, the menu doesn't drop down unless I click on the arrow, move the pointer off the arrow, move it back and click again. When I select text, if I change the size and it goes out of bounds, that portion gets deselected. Also, the text size changes whenever you change the size number, not when you hit enter, so deleting both numbers sets it back to the default Vera Sans at 12 pts. It is a chore to use. Not that I expected otherwise from something versioned 0.45.whatever... superlusertc 2007 December 05, 05:49 (UTC) The text handling was revamped in a Google Summer of Code project this year, and is supposedly much better now (though I haven't tried it - it will be in 0.46, whenever that comes out). Anyway, discussions about the failings of Inkscape (and questions about how to use it) are not really appropriate here, and would be better on the Inkscape mailing lists, or on InkscapeForum.com. --Zundark (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Fair enough. I only used that as an example of how "Nothing else matters" was correct. It's difficult to add such subjective comments to the article, but I felt that it needed some corroboration. superlusertc 2007 December 05, 19:55 (UTC) I don't agree. I'm not an Inkscape neither a CG guru, but I think it's very easy and intuitive. Although it helps, if you have used another vector editing application earlier. --Zslevi (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) I agree , the P. D. F. support sucks ( have OpenSuse ) , i will add respective screenshots ( but am too busy now ) . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.191.108 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC) "Hard to use" is entirely subjective which means it will always fail to be a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) but if people comment on the talk pages perhaps some facts can be distilled from within the opinions and mentioned in the article if citations from reviews (or planned improvements by the developers) reflect those opinions. Disagreeing doesn't make it any less true that some people will inevitably find Inkscape is not as easy or as intuitive as they would like it to be. If you have used another vector editing application then you could say it was consistent with existing conventions or familiar but that still wouldn't make it intuitive. Even though we might like to praise Inkscape it is far better to stick to the facts and encourage readers to try it let them decide how successful the developers have been in meeting their usability goals. -- Horkana (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone tryes to ( completely ) remove this section ?! I can't say if it's hard to use or not, but I do know for software the purports to be based on SVG, it produces extremely poor quality SVG files. Extremely poor. The output SVG is bloated with unnecessary information by large factors, typically 10 or more. That is to say, a program producing good SVG files would result in those files being smaller by factors of 10 or more over inkscape generated files. That's why I don't use it. Matplotlib, for generating graphs, is almost as bad. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Have you tried saving a copy as "Plain SVG" rather than "Inkscape SVG"? Eldar (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit of lead

In response to this article having a tag calling for edit to the lead paragraph, I have done an edit of the lead with the goal of making it concise and accessible. Accordingly I have removed that tag on the lead. Feel free to improve upon my work. Cheers, Mdukas (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where should version numbers go?

Hi.

I am starting this discussion following a dispute between I and Patrick87 about the fields in which version numbers should be placed, following a discussion on my talk page. Here is a summary of our views:

Patrick87

Version numbers declared stable on the official website (e.g. 0.91) should go into |latest release version= field while version numbers declared as unstable (e.g. 0.91pre2) should go into |latest preview version=. To quote directly: "While version numbers of 1.0 and higher might indicate a certain degree of maturity, the opposite is certainly not true in general! Otherwise we'd need to downgrade a considerable amount of FOSS software to "preview" status which obviously isn't appropriate. In case of Inkscape the status of Version 0.91 is even officially declared as "stable" as apparent on its download page."

Codename Lisa

I am yet to see an official website that shirks from boasting about its product. Version numbers like 0.91 are beta versions. Version numbers like 0.91pre2 are alpha versions. Both must be placed inside |latest preview version=. If and when the version number reached 1.0, that must be placed inside |latest release version=. Regardless of what the official website says, Inkscape is still far from maturity and lacks the quality of matured programs like Adobe Illustrator, even though it is clearly more powerful. Inkscape developers may keep it in perpetual beta stage, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should ignore due weight and unduely give it the same status as other programs that are released to manufacturing. This is also the view held by Template:Infobox software/doc.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option 2: The general convention is that software version numbers below 1.0 are still in development and have not completed their software release life cycle and have not entered software maintenance stage. Inkscape is clearly feature incomplete. (See thread above.) Intentional or not, option 1 is awfully pro-Inkscape advert. Fleet Command (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• FYI, the diagram comes from software versioning. Fleet Command (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Funny how you think that your opinion establishes consent... What do you think we had this section for? Right! To find a consent before making a change again (which you just did as a matter of you personal taste). What a kindergarten...
• That said your reasoning with version numbers and release life cycle is just plain wrong. Our info box can inform about the "stable release" and the "preview release" of a software. Version 27.7.2 of a software can be a preview. Version 0.9.1 of a software can be stable – and so is Inkscape 0.91. Even if it might not have reached full maturity, it's a stable release version! And this should be reflected in the Infobox and nothing else. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Patrick87 and Mark viking: I think I have said "Codename Lisa is wrong" a lot lately, so I am just not gonna say it. But I feel she is projecting the image of support personnel sitting behind desks with headsets on. Instead, I tell you this: Inkscape is using a versioning scheme that is unique to open-source software:

1. There is no alpha (internal test), beta (public test) and release candidates anymore. Everything is in the open. Each version is either stable or unstable. Stability refers to reliability here. There nightly builds too. The development is tedious anyway. So, there comes the Chill, Frost, Freeze and so forth. (See below.)
2. This one is the invention of the open-source culture and did not exist before: Version numbers below 1.0 (i.e. 0.x) means "not ready for production use".

In case you want a source, here: [1] and [2]

Those who have contributed to Commons are familiar with Commons:Template:Inkscape-hand. A lot of times I had to save in Inkscape, continue editing in Notepad++. Inkscape 0.91 still does not support <ellipse />. If you create a circle, ellipse or arc, it'll throw a <path /> at you, which is not suitable for Commons.

Wikipedia uses a hybrid approach infoboxes. Hence, I choose option 2, because it says "preview" not "unstable". "Preview" is a good generic word. But last time I checked (and it was a long time ago), Patrick87 and Technical 13 were fixing this in Infobox Software talk page. What happened?

Patrick87, a little less personal attack, please. The discussion was abandoned for 22 days. Not everyone edits because he hates your guts. Sometimes people want to lend a hand.

Fleet Command (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 Personally, I think version numbers are PR devices. Windows 1.0 was in no way stable or feature complete. But none of our opinions on the subject matter; what matters is whether secondary sources verify that a given version number is considered a stable release. In this case, LWN considers 0.48 and 0.91 major stable releases, The Book of Inkscape: The Definitive Guide to the Free Graphics Editor considers 0.XX releases to be stable releases and Phoronix considers 0.91 a major release. This is enough verification for me; version 0.91 can be considered a stable release for the purposes of the article and infobox. --Mark viking (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mark viking Hi. There is a problem: Everything you said is right. (And no, there is no catch; all of them are right.) But there is a small point that you didn't consider. Yes, version numbers are PR devices. We were totally aware of it when we embedded it into Wikipedia articles. LWN article used it for the correct purpose: Now, "stable" has two meanings: "Reliable, well-performing" and "a RTM / RTW version". The infobox means the latter while LWN means the former. (LWN explicitly uses "unstable or unreliable".) LWN is right: I know lots of betas that are very reliable. Right now, I am running FileVerifier++ and it is the case here. But Windows 1.0 was an RTM version because Microsoft made a huge commitment afterwards and earned a lot of money out of it too.

So, I am afraid you looked for the wrong kind of sources. For a version number to go into |Latest stable version=, it needs to show a source to the effect that development life cycle is completed and now Inkscape is now being supported. You see, my concern is that we are not obliged to do what in Patrick's opinion amounts to cutting developer's some slack because of their hard work by giving their preview versions an image of RTM version. I think true appreciation comes by neutrally showing that FOSS software might some times take a long time to get developed. And don't worry: Inkscape 1.0 will come out just as Firefox 1.0 eventually did. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa. Thanks for pointing out the criteria used for the infobox release fields. It appears to me that Inkscape satisfies both your senses of the term reliable. Looking at RTM / RTW sections you pointed to, RTM/RTW are about releasing the software to the client or public, not about earning a lot of money. Inkscape has been released to the public for years, has undergone mass duplication, and has long achieved general availability, the step beyond RTM/RTW. Whole books have been written about the software, also released to the public for sale. Inkscape has been supported between major releases with bugfix releases (typically 0.XX.1 releases) and feature upgrade releases, The program has been localized to dozens of languages [3] and I suspect that it is included in most major Linux distributions that have a GUI. Feature complete or not, the quality has long been sufficient for mass distribution. Thus my understanding is that Inkscape satisfies the conditions for RTM/RTW/GA and thus for the infobox stable release field. --Mark viking (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mark viking: You almost got it. Almost. Actually, what you just said is correct about every single beta program that I know of, including the currently-preview Windows 10. Oh, and Inkscape is apparently aiming for RTW, so there will be no RTM or GA, hence no I am not going to comment about the sentence "and has long achieved general availability". Public beta is available to general public but it is not "general availability". (And what you said about the quality is your personal opinion; I wildly disagree. The amount of bug that I find and register is overwhelming. And there are still "not implemented yet" dialog boxes.) The criterion to which you should pay particular attention is the start of maintenance lifecycle. Inkscape has announced six development stages: Regular Development, Chill, Frost, Freeze, Hard Freeze and Release. None of these include a maintenance plan. They haven't even announced it yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Option 1 2 While I agree that version numbers below 1.0 are incomplete versions of a software, that generally refers to the creator's initial list of goals, not stability. "Latest stable release" typically refers to the latest official release by the creator(s). In the case of Windows 10, Microsoft isn't recommending people switch to the Developer Preview. It's there for people who want to try it. The latest official release of Windows is 8.1. Inkscape's website lists 0.91 as the latest official stable release [4]. The page linked also lists a development release, which would belong in the latest preview version. ― Padenton|✉   16:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Padenton: Can I ask? Where is this mysterious word "unstable" that drives people towards Option 1? And why you think a piece of software can't have two different preview-type versions? Firefox has. Chrome has. Android has. Ubuntu has. OpenOffice has. Fleet Command (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• @FleetCommand: Sure, it's right here: |latest stable version=. There are different meanings for 'preview-type' version. There's software that is not feature complete, and there's software where it is feature complete and now they're working on new features that need testing. All of those different preview-type versions are by software that have a non-preview-type version. Inkscape doesn't, it's not feature complete. People look at Development version in the infobox and it's read as the cutting edge beta version that isn't fully tested. That's the purpose of the latest-preview-version field. That's not the case here. Inkscape's reasoning (along with that of every pre v1.0 software) for listing the version number as below 1.0, is that it's not feature complete, which is based on the developer's goals and milestones for what they want in the software. It has nothing to do with the stability of the software. ― Padenton|✉   20:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Padenton: I don't see the un in |latest stable version=. "Stable" has two meanings: In closed-source, it means "RTM". In open-source, it means it does not crash. Open-source has invented the 0.x version convention in which all versions below 1.0 are preview. See [5] and [6] Inkscape has not two, but six different stages of preview versions. Fleet Command (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• @FleetCommand: That's fine, I believe we are talking about an Open-source piece of software here.― Padenton|✉   20:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Padenton: You agree? Huh! Then I am surprised as to why you said Option 1. Correct me if I am wrong: If something is not ready for production use, then it is a preview, regardless of whether it crashes or not. In fact, this is what is written in Template:Infobox software/doc. It specifically says "development branch" too. Fleet Command (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@FleetCommand: Hmmm....no you're absolutely right. In fact, the infobox doesn't even have a latest stable version parameter. That was my only gripe w/ 2, so I've changed my vote accordingly. @Codename Lisa:? Accident? @Mark viking: you may want to look at this also.― Padenton|✉   21:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fleet Command fixed the parameter names now (it was just a typo). Does the above choice correctly reflect you opinion now Padenton? (Which would be a) Inkscape 0.91 is the latest preview release; b) Inkscape does not have a latest stable release at all.) --Patrick87 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think LibreOffice is doing the right thing: "Still" (stable) and "Fresh" (unstable) are both listed in both Preview slot and product slot. Fleet Command (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2Geom

Seems to be non-notable (not even yet fully complete or spawned off as own unit), merely a vision of a separate component that is currently a partial implementation and/or only really used within notable other product. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to delete it altogether. Lacking secondary coverage, it's hard to see that it even warrants a section within the Inkscape article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No objection to that course of action. DMacks (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, a separate section for lib2geom would be undue weight. It gets a mention in a Linux Weekly News artcle as a component of PowerStroke, but that is the only secondary RS I could find. Perhaps we could insert in the Operations on paths subsection: "Deformations of live paths, such as those provided by PowerStroke, are performed using lib2geom, a computational geometry library within Inkscape." and then redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree. It should be merged or deleted. Non notable libraries don't belong here. There are millions of them on FOSS sites. Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Speaking as an Inkscape developer, 2Geom isn't really considered to be a "true" separate library. In fact, our plan is to use it as a git submodule of the Inkscape code rather than focusing on making any stable releases. I don't think it warrants its own article unless a stable version is released. Papa November (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. Kill it; or merge if it proved a resilient pest. Fleet Command (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion: Others have merged it, but left the old article still existing. I set it to a redirect and cleaned up some tags. No prejudice against deletion-discussion of that now-redirect. DMacks (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sprawling jargons vs. their well-known abbreviated form

I think it is wrong to sacrifice the readability of the article, just to write an expanded form an abbreviation when the abbreviated form is known better. Excerpt from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations:

Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title), in which case the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article: according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency).

Now, I think this example is clearly sacrificing a lot just to write the expanded form:

The color selector has; Red Green Blue Alpha (RGBA), Hue Saturation Lightness (HSL), Cyan Magenta Yellow Key(black) (CMYK), Color Wheel, Color Management System (CMS) color options available

...not to mention how awful the double parentheses and the absence of comma is.

Fleet Command (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Versions/Milestones/Releases

Can we put Inkscapes release history into a table similar to:

Colour	Meaning
Red	Old release; not supported
Yellow	Old release; still supported
Green	Current release
Blue	Future release

Version	Code name	Testing name	Release date	Supported until	Features and Changes
4.10	Warty Warthog	Sounder	2004-10-20	2006-04-30	Initial release; ShipIt
5.04	Hoary Hedgehog	Array	2005-04-08	2006-10-31	Update Manager; Upgrade Notifier; readahead; grepmap; laptop suspend, hibernate and standby; dynamic frequency scaling; Ubuntu hardware database; Kickstart; installation from USB devices; UTF-8 by default; APT authentication
5.10	Breezy Badger	Colony	2005-10-13	2007-04-13	Usplash (graphical boot sequence); "Add/Remove..." application tool; easy language selector; logical volume management support; full Hewlett-Packard printer support; OEM installer support; Launchpad integration
6.06 LTS	Dapper Drake	Flight	2006-06-01	2009-06 (desktops)	Long Term Support (LTS) release; Live CD and Install CD merged onto one disc; Ubiquity graphical installer on Live CD; Usplash on shutdowns; Network Manager for easy switching of multiple wired and wireless connections; 'Humanlooks' theme implemented using Tango guidelines, based on Clearlooks and featuring orange colours instead of brown; LAMP installation option; installation to USB devices; GDebi graphical installer for package files
				2011-06 (servers)
6.10	Edgy Eft	Knot	2006-10-26	2008-04	Ubuntu 'Human' theme heavily modified; Upstart init daemon; automated crash reports (Apport); Tomboy notetaking application; F-spot photo manager; EasyUbuntu merges into Ubuntu via meta-package installs and features
7.04	Feisty Fawn	Herd	2007-04-19	2008-10	Migration assistant; Kernel-based Virtual Machine support; easy codec and restricted drivers installation; Compiz desktop effects; Wi-Fi Protected Access support; PowerPC support dropped; Sudoku and chess games added; disk usage analyser (baobab) added; GNOME Control Center; Zeroconf for many devices
7.10	Gutsy Gibbon	Tribe	2007-10-18	2009-04	Compiz Fusion by default; AppArmor security framework; fast desktop search; fast user switching; some plug-ins for Mozilla Firefox now handled by APT (Ubufox); graphical configuration tool for X.org; a revamped printing system with PDF printing by default; full NTFS support (read/write) via NTFS-3G
8.04 LTS	Hardy Heron	Alpha	2008-04-24	2011-04 (desktops)	Long Term Support (LTS) release;; Better Tango compliance; compiz usability improvements; tracker integration;; Brasero disk burner, Transmission BitTorrent client and Vinagre VNC client by default; PulseAudio by default
				2013-04 (servers)
8.10	Intrepid Ibex	Alpha	2008-10-30	2010-04	Complete interface redesign; improvements to mobile computing and desktop scalability; increased flexibility for Internet connectivity

Altonbr (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

this?

• @Altonbr: - Done.
• @FleetCommand: - Are you okay with this format?

Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have one word for you: WP:CHANGELOG. —Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you go delete the "changelog" from Adobe Illustrator first? Why are you biased against free software? Why can't you explain your specific issue with the table instead of just deleting the entire thing? I don't see any difference between the release history of illustrator and inkscape. -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you go delete the "changelog" from Adobe Illustrator first? I assumed you did so by now.

Why are you biased against free software? Because I love free software and care about their article not looking like a junk dump.

Quoting the guidelines, "Exhaustive logs of software updates" : I have only mentioned major features and additions. Bug fix releases have been deleted. How is the table exhaustive? "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included" : Which I have done. Please specify your issue -- Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I will let them be this time and ask for a third opinion. —Fleet Command (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I will let you do whatever you feel is best. Provided you don't have a bias against free software, if you feel the article looks better without the table, go ahead and delete it. Arguments really tire me out too. Wonderfl ^(reply) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Is the question about formatting of the table, or whether to have the table? If it is about whether to have the table, the table really does appear to be a case of Wikipedia is not a changelog. What is the question? I am removing the question as answered. If the question is not what I understood, please re-add it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Robert McClenon. The question is: Does the table presented in the article adhere to WP:NOTCHANGELOG? Yes, no, and partially could be the answers. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The table is, in my opinion, a changelog of the sort that the guideline says is an indiscriminate collection of information. That is my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: What about Adobe Illustrator, a software of the same kind that has a "change log" with the exact same amount of detail and in the exact same style? Is that also an "indiscriminate collection of information"? Or do you guys have double standards? Wonderfl ^(reply) 08:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I was only asked about one product. Third Opinion is a lightweight process and isn't binding; but if you want to ask my opinion about another product, then ask it without being sarcastic, and you are more likely to get an answer than if you are sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

2Geom

"2Geom is a computational geometry library, originally developed for Inkscape. While developed for Inkscape it is a library that can be used from any application. It provides support for basic geometric algebra, paths, distortions, boolean operations, plotting implicit functions, non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) and more. 2Geom is free software released under LGPL 2.1 or MPL 1.1."

I removed this section from the article because it was stubby and unsourced. I now see that it used to be its own article, so evidently it's important. I don't have any knowledge of the subject myself, though, so even though I'm aware this post is profoundly unhelpful I'm afraid there's not much more I can do. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that it has its own SourceForge and GitHub pages, as well as a wiki. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inkscape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704225718/http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Googles_Summer_Of_Code to http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Googles_Summer_Of_Code

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Autocad DXF

Inkscape can export Autocad DXF files. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Advertisement ?!

This is world class open Source Software Developed by thousands of Users and Programmers in Last 20 Years. HERE is no commercial site. It is used by millions of Users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.185.87 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly all true, but that doesn't mean someone can't write an article that has the tone of an advertisement rather than a more neutral one. DMacks (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks and Hohum: This article still has a cleanup tag that was added last year. How can the article's "tone" be improved? Jarble (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, there's too much focus on pretty standard features. It really looks like someone tries to 'sell' the editor to an article user. Some of those things, like 'startup performance' aren't even features and there's no reference to it. 'Interface and usability' section is a mix of PR pitch and release notes. On a side note, lack of references is somewhat visible.
I think that, even though LibreOffice article is also rated C, it's a pretty good example of an article of a program with similar (FOSS) background. — K4rolB (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of the "Gallery" section

I'm questioning the value of these images, specifically for the purpose of illustrating the subject of this article. As I mentioned in my edit summary when I removed the section, their value is questionable: just because e.g. a text was created using a text editor, the screenshot of the text, or the text itself, is not a good/appropriate illustration for an article on the particular text editor with which it was created. Obviously, the same goes about graphics editors. As these images are pretty much just random examples of SVG & PNG images, I can't quite see how they are important enough for this article on Inkscape.

@Dhtwiki: You mentioned in your edit summary that reverted my section-removal edit, that "these images give some idea of what can be accomplished with this software". It is true, but this doesn't make these images relevant for inclusion into the "Gallery" section of this article. The point you made is by itself is not enough to have the "Gallery" section like this included here at all. These images are useless fodder for this article, IMO. cherkash (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cherkash: WP:GALLERY states:

A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

This article's gallery illustrates without crowding out text, which could happen if you tried to place images next to relevant text. The gallery shows examples of what's possible without overdoing it, and the captions are well thought out (although one is confusing: "Raster to vector comparison", as the raster image is not there for comparison). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: The collection of images in the gallery is rather trivial. Moreover, it is not specific to Inkscape – but rather illustrates SVG & PNG file formats in general. cherkash (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "trivial". I see those images as examples of what the software can be used for, and I don't see too much duplication of examples (e.g. two, not one, church plans, etc.). All the images apparently were created using Inkscape, as none that I've looked at definitely says otherwise, even if at least one attribution is ambiguous on that score. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The gallery is a harmless and useful illustration of some usages of Inkscape. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

1.0 Beta2

https://inkscape.org/release/inkscape-1.0beta2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:3485:2101:DC8C:B249:6A2A:B7DE (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Object creation rework

I decided to rework object creation section, because it had many problems, including being overly detailed, list instead of prose, sounding like an advert, and likely being copied from some other source. I replaced it with my work, but I'm fully aware it's not perfect. K4rolB (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevant list of issues to be fixed

Hi there. My name is Victor. I would like to know, please, what is the relevant list of issues that we need to fix in this article so it looks better and informs wikipedia visitors better as well.

My comprehension on this so far is:

• Article needs more citations
• Article needs more neutral point of view when describing program features
• Article needs more information (# of developers, maybe a newer image)
• Article needs a better file format table (more columns?)
• I need more examples of NPOV articles written here in wikipedia (please, 4 or 5, only LibreOffice is too little examples for me).

And that is my initial list for now. Thank you for your time and patience. Thank you! Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor.westmann (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Victor! Some time ago I decided to overhaul the article and I'm making slow changes to it. This is my private list of things to fix. All comments are to myself, so they may sound all over the place. Take it as a rough guide of what I think about the article:
* Operations on paths – change into prose
* Text support – is that important? Put into object creation
* put useful cleanup tags everywhere: self-published sources, citation needed
* File formats – find source and update the table
* Other features – sources or remove it
* Interface and usability – it's somewhere between release notes and advert. Also, lacking in sources
* lead section – decide what should be put there and then start molding it into sentences
– K4rolB (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)