On 16 Dec 2001, at 14:58, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of
> > images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of
> > ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for
> > that.
> my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable
> interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF which
> isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support into
> various other apps will make that even more difficult. Perhaps I'm
> thinking too idealistic here...
Don't ever stop being idealistic! :-)
However, there may be a real world need for XCF support in other apps
right now. The ImageMagick team might be better equiped to judge
wether they need XCF support than we do.
Also, if some entity decides they need XCF support, they should run
into a brick wall when they try and find out more from us.
>From what I understand, the hardest part is to make sure that any
effect (even as simple as adding pixels from two layers for the
screen) looks the same in GIMP as in any other program. I do not
think that is necessary. Rather, the users should be informed that if
they take something that needs to be rendered, they should be aware
that there may be differences between renderings in different
programs. (This should perhaps be in the Help files under the
chapters for the import/export plug-ins for XCF and PSD and other
such formats.) And of course, the way the GIMP renders images should
be documented somewhere.
Gimp-developer mailing list