Re: RFC: require librsvg to implement SVG image support

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Sorry for piping up:

Personally I don't see any problem with Jean's poll: It clearly was not 
intended as a way to reach a democratic decision, but as a means of 
obtaining a data point.

> (which is surprising and my interpretation is that the question was
> phrased wrongly: Currently, the only format for the inclusion of vector
> graphics is EPS. I just tested this with the Debian logo, and
> conversion to SVG with Imagemagick produces a black-and-white image.
> Conversion to PDF on the other hand is as easy as "ps2pdf -dEPSCrop"
> and hugely battle-tested with Ghostscript. Conversion to SVG actually
> seems to work with Inkscape, but requires the use of a graphical
> interface (or I haven't found the full batch options yet), and
> internally seems to use Ghostscript, so it's actually two conversions
> instead of one. My conclusion is that PDF is the more "logical"
> successor to the inclusion of EPS.)

I think (and I hope that my judgement is not being clouded by my own 
private preference for SVG) that there's one flaw in your logic: Namely, 
you seem to assume that the current situation allowing only EPS as 
import format is good/convenient for most users. For example, in a 
hypothetical situation where users have resorted to converting their 
SVGs to EPS in order to being able to import them into LilyPond scores, 
it would not be surprising that a poll on PDF vs. SVG resulted in a 
preference for SVG.

But of course it's of value in itself to be as backwards-compatible as 
possible (which would lead to favouring PDF, as has been detailed by 
you), and since I can't contribute to the technical matters at hand, 
I'll shut up again. :-)

Lukas