On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked
> > > > support for reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the
> > > > ImageMagick library (http://www.imagemagick.org).
> > > >
> > >if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I
> > >guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF.
> >
> > OK, I'll bite...
> >
> > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad
> > idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because
> > GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Because no one
> > really uses XCF as a file format?
>
> (1) Because the XCF format may change at any time and will do so
> sooner or later.
In a well documented way, I hope, so that the ImageMagick people can
support the new format without too much trouble.
> (2) Because to mimick the way GIMP projects its layers and channels
> you have to implement all layer modes which boils down to copying
> or reimplementing a lot of code from The GIMP. This will become
> worse as soon as XCF will be extended to handle text and effect
> layers. You will end up either rewriting or copying the GIMP core.
My guess IM already has to do similar things for PSD. Admittedly, I
only took a brief look at the PSD specs and the PSD load plug-in of
GIMP, but they did not seem to be too different (with the exception
of course of PS features of version 5 and newer).
> (3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats
> ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well.
As mentioned, not in a way that will keep layers and such.
--
branko collin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
