Just noticed something. When I use the Rectangle tool, and enter a width or height on the Tool Control, it interprets the numbers as being the size without the Stroke Width. But when I then select the Selection Tool, it includes the Stroke Width?

Is there a reason I can't fathom why they work differently? I always thing of object in terms of their size including the Stroke Width, and often enter exact sizes, so this makes using the Rectangle tool more work for me to use.

PS Not sure this is consistent. It's doing it for one rectangle where the Rx and Ry values are not the same. Not sure if that's related to what I'm seeing.

1. there are two types of (selection) bounding boxes: visual (includes stroke) and geometric (from node to node). You can toggle between the two modes in 'Inkscape Preferences > Tools > Bounding box to use'. This influences what values are displayed in the select tool controls bar W/H entry fields (but they always display the values of the current selection, not the selected object).
2. the (selection) bounding box is different from object geometry: width and size of a sinlge rectangle object is always measured as distance between the nodes, the stroke-width is an attribute of the shape, not part of its geometry.

To test: create a rectangle (100x200), switch to the select tool, rotate it: the W/H fields on the controls bar reflect the changed size of the bounding box. Switch back to the rectangle tool: W/H have still the same values (100x200) since the geometry of the object didn't change.

Thanks, suv. Hmm.. I'm sure I read that a while back. Not sure I understand why they did it that way, even for a more node-centered tool. The problem for me is exacerbated when dealing with a rounded corner rectangle because as soon as you muck with the size with the Selection Tool, then you change the radius which you may have defined specifically.

I know it's not your job to defend every dev decision. Just making conversation.

Kjohrf wrote:I know it's not your job to defend every dev decision.

Sorry if it looks that way. Not my intention and way over my head... ;-)

Kjohrf wrote:Not sure I understand why they did it that way, even for a more node-centered tool.

I don't know the history behind the decision. IIRC (reading in the inkscape-devel archives or was it in one of the bug tracker discussions? ;-) Inkscape initially only supported the visual bounding box model, and the ability to choose different bbox modes was added later, maybe necessary or enforced by new snapping techniques. I had a similar discussion before - and maybe I should have mentioned here as well that my view certainly is biased: I have a background in CAAD, and even if my experience (AutoCAD) is very dated after a long hiatus from anything digital I still can't really think about vector objects other than paths (defined by coordinates) with attributes like fill-color and stroke-width that describe the visual appearance of a path but not the geometric definition. At the same time I am aware of the difficulties in Inkscape resulting from the mix of visual bounding box as "paradigm" and snapping modes that only apply to nodes. For example creating objects: the tools always snap the nodes (to grid or guides), only repositioning and/or resizing with the selection bbox handles once the object is created allows snapping the outlines of stroked paths (if the bbox is set to 'visual') [I could be wrong though - please correct me if I totally missed something very basic here]. Or rescaling / changing the stroke-width of (visually) aligned objects 'undoes' the alignment. Or… I guess there are countless issues buried in this. And I haven't even mentioned the SVG specification (which is based on the 'node-centered' definition of paths AFAIK).

Kjohrf wrote:when dealing with a rounded corner rectangle because as soon as you muck with the size with the Selection Tool, then you change the radius which you may have defined specifically.

Doesn't the preference 'Scale rounded corners in rectangles' prevent this from happening if turned off?