Re: gEDA-user: Zero length pins

[kai-martin knaak <kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Doty wrote:

> You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes good
> documentation.

Your comment referred to me adding a note to the wiki. Since this list 
of tips does not aim to be the documentation of gschem, I fail to see 
your point.


> Is there any engineering culture that uses a system different
> from the latin-arabic system commonly used for this like this?

You claimed radical flexibility as an indispensable ingredient. Now you 
argue, that nobody needs it ...


> But that's inconsistent with your view above. If I want my company
> logo on a schematic, I must import pixels: it's based on an
> astronomical image.

It still does not fit the workflow. You pay for the less than optimum 
choice by the management. Even, if you are perfectly fine with fuzzy 
pixelized graphics it does not support your claim of flexibility. A 
flexible approach would allow the inclusion of vectorized graphics as 
vectorized objects. Hardly any logo is pixel based (for a reason).


> Similarly, the "stick drawings" you complain about are a consequence
> of using a vector format.

not true, unless you call graphics like these "stick figures": 
http://inkscape.org/screenshots/gallery/inkscape-0.45-cupoftea.png

 
>> For example, printing to PDF 
>> via cups-pdf barfs on PNGs. 
> 
> But export of graphics to PS works pretty well in gEDA. Specialized
> tools need not and should not support every graphics format.

Supporting a graphics feature with some standard output engines but not 
with others is trapping users. Other applications like gimp or eog have 
no trouble printing png images to cups-pdf. 


>> The way xfig incorporates LaTeX may be worth a closer look.
> 
> That's real *inflexibility*.

You've got a somewhat private definition of inflexibilty. With xfig you 
can choose to include latex formatted text or you can go with plain 
text in one of the default postscript fonts. With gschem you are 
confined to a single font. Formula typesetting is not available at all. 
Which of the two is more flexible?


> Users should not be required to use LaTeX, make, or any other
> specific tool, 

Neither do xfig users.


> but should be able to easily get gEDA to cooperate with these
> tools,

Which is currently only marginally available. Export of a portable 
graphics format is a very weak form of cooperation. Import is only 
possible in a crippled pixelized way.

---<)kaimartin(>---
-- 
Kai-Martin Knaak
Ãffentlicher PGP-SchlÃssel:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0B9F53



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user