On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:58:20PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> 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...

Well I'm thinking the same way, maybe we're all idealists.

Maybe we should just tell these people that we feel the same way about
XCF as JASC do about PSP, Adobe do about PSD. If we wake up and decide
to invert the meaning of 50% of flags, re-arrange the structures and
then add fourteen mysterious new values that's OUR problem, and trying
to "standardise" our private format makes no sense.

There is a mostly completed, free/open standard for storing lots of
related image data called MNG. It was primarily targetted at animation
but the higher levels include IMHO sufficient expressiveness to store
image layer stacks, icon collections or any other type of multi-image


With a few public "required" chunks added you could express any image
layer stack in this format and no-one loses their private format for
future expansion (which is the harsh reality of what will happen if
we support these plans to implement XCF in other apps)

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to