[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [office] Proposal: layer-set per page]]
Hi, please find below Thorsten Zachmann's comments regarding layer-sets per page. ============= Hello, I'm Thorsten Zachmann and I'm working on KPresenter the presentation application of koffice. Sorry that it took so long to reply to your email. I also talked to one of our artists and the developer of Karbon our vector drawing application. I initiated the original proposal of the page layers David sent out. On Monday 13 August 2007, Christian Lippka wrote: > having individual layers for pages in a drawing document makes perfectly > sense as a feature. > > If I read your proposal correct you want to keep the document wide > layers and add > optional layers per page. I think this only complicates things. Take > your example that > when you delete a layer only the shapes that are on that layer on the > current slides > are deleted. This will only happen if the deleted layer is in fact a > layer that is local > to the current slide. Deleting a document wide layer will still cause > all shapes to be > deleted. I think this is a source of major confusion for the users. > Also I'm not a fan of user interface dialogs like "do you want to add > that layer > to the current page only or to the document Yes/No/What?" > > So my opinion to this proposal is to either define that the page layer > completely override the document wide layer or better to define > that a document can have either only document wide layer or > page layer. > > Having only page layer and maybe deprecating document wide layer would > allow us to add two other nice enhancements. Yes you are right, having only page layers simplifies the implementation for us developers. However I think we should come up with a unified way to convert document layers to page layers. This would ease the life of the users. It also would enable us to have a silent conversation form document layers to page layers. However as the features do not fit, as page layers also "influence" the paint order, I think we should at least keep the paint order of the shapes as they are defined in the document and adjust the layer with a best effort strategy. > 1) Layer in other drawing applications always also influence the paint > order of the shapes. > Therefore if you move one layer behind another layer, you also move the > shapes > from that layer behind the shapes of the other layer. If we deprecate > the old > document wide layer we could define this behavior for the page layer and > avoid > compatibility issues with old documents. The talk with the artist revealed that this is the behaviour he prefers. > By adding this paint order feature to the layers, one must thing how to > handle > group shapes. Does it make sense that shapes inside group shapes can > have individual layers? Or should only the group shapes on page level have > layers and all shapes inside would be forced to the layer of the top > group shape? > Personally I think only the later makes sense and could be implemented > without > making this feature to complicated for the end user. It also applies to how to handle raise/lower bring to front/send to back. I thing the applications can decide how to handle this cases. Sure when shapes of different layers are grouped together only the shapes can only be part of one layer. I think we should keep the behaviour described in ODF 1.1, 9.2.15: Z-Index Drawing shapes are rendered in a specific order. In general, the shapes are rendered in the order in which they appear in the XML document. To change the order, use the svg:z-index attribute. With this also applications which do not support layers still display the shapes in the right order. > 2) Layer settings are currently application view settings > In OpenOffice.org a layer can be visible or hidden, printable or non > printable and > locked or non locked. These are implemented as view settings and therefore > stored like the other settings as generic and undocumented data. > OOo supports these settings individual for each open view. This may make > sense > for the visibility flag, so you want a layer visible in one view and not > visible in > the next. But that does not make much sense for printing and lock. Those > attributes are definitely document settings. > And even for the visibility the current feature is flawed as OOo only > saves one > view, so the per view information is lost. > Therefore I would suggest to also add these three layer properties directly > to the page layer in the document and making them therefore document > settings. We fully agree in this point that these setting should be document settings. Have a nice week. Thorsten Zachmann -- David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE, Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]