> But since the filters naming is conform to the recommendations, I'd say we should fix the way Inkscape handle the filters, not the filters themselves.
What you mean by 'not the filters themselves'
because some filters in current Filters.svg were broken anyway (their "in" attribute reference non existing source)
IMO bugs in inkscape show that the spec were badly designed by allowing duplicate name in result when there should be "local" id.
Yes it would be better if inkscape handle the filters accordingly to the svg spec but before this happens I'd really like a quick bug fix that would be giving a new unique id for result when duplicating a primitive in inkscape.
I think very few people use filters from "external" sources (hand designed or proprietary software designed). Most will use the predefined ones. Few will try to design their own (because of bugs ;) ).
So if one fix the filters.svg + duplication bug then we can wait for a better fix.
> But since the filters naming is conform to the recommendations, I'd say we should fix the way Inkscape handle the filters, not the filters themselves.
What you mean by 'not the filters themselves'
because some filters in current Filters.svg were broken anyway (their "in" attribute reference non existing source)
IMO bugs in inkscape show that the spec were badly designed by allowing duplicate name in result when there should be "local" id.
Yes it would be better if inkscape handle the filters accordingly to the svg spec but before this happens I'd really like a quick bug fix that would be giving a new unique id for result when duplicating a primitive in inkscape.
I think very few people use filters from "external" sources (hand designed or proprietary software designed). Most will use the predefined ones. Few will try to design their own (because of bugs ;) ).
So if one fix the filters.svg + duplication bug then we can wait for a better fix.