(2026-02-03, 17:25)Max Murtazin Wrote: If SVG is ever to be allowed, I feel like there has to be some restrictions put onto which parts of SVG specs are to be allowed. There is already a very big problem with consistency of implementations of it's parts, even in some big software, and I have no doubts the problem will only be exaggerated with the solutions different implementations of LDraw renderers will run into
Based on the discussion, my feeling now is that SVG—or, as you say, a limited subset of its specifications—is better implemented as an extension to the LDraw language format. I don't know whether this would entail embedded the XML tags for SVG elements into LDraw code, or simply creating new LDraw commands that perform (and could be converted from) SVG commands. In any case, this would be a later, separate discussion and no longer part of the current proposal.
Quote:Also, with any such extension to me a problem of backwards compatibility begins to look worse with each time. Realistically, this would only enlarge the number of parts that would be effectively unsupported with each such change. Unless the change is going to introduce big improvements to either part making or ease of implementation (which I don't really see this proposal really doing either of the two), I'm not gonna be very supportive of it
TEXMAP already addresses backwards compatibility with its fallback method, so the situation would be the same as it is now, say with a PNG texture that's not supported by the rendering program. If anything, it should improve backward compatibility since you'd already be creating LDraw code, which could perhaps be more easily converted to a traditional non-mapped LDraw pattern for fallback purposes. Right now, if you're mapping a PNG texture, your options are basically to fallback to an unpatterned geometry, or separately create a version using LDraw geometry.
Improvements should be very tangible with this proposal. For part making, patterns should become much easier since you only have to author a flat version, rather than figuring out how to break up patterns to use them on curved surfaces. And it would give better results, since you get the crispness of LDraw textures without losing the definition of the underlying curvature. (Also don't forget the potential improvements to non-patterned curved surfaces, too.)
Implementation is not my expertise, so I rely on Roland's optimism for its ease of implementation. I do still want to hear from any other developers, though—are there any opinions for or against the proposal, assuming SVG is out of the picture?