On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 06:19:27PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

> > HOWEVER, this might be a good time to think about whether we'd
> > prefer a compressed format that we can random-access de/compress
> > on the fly instead of going via a huge (and with image data we
> > can easily be talking HUGE) temporary intermediate file.
> If we would compress the image data in the archive there would be no
> need for compression of the archive. Sure you could gain a few bytes
> by compressing the XML but since the already compressed image data
> doesn't compress well and in the worst case even gets larger, I don't
> see why anyone would want to compress the archive.


I have a more concrete suggestion (I'm still favoring ZIP files because
they can somehow be handled without a GIMP which is useful, e.g. if they
are broken): Make an uncompressed ZIP (or maybe compress the XML part
only). The XML describes the structure and all attributes.

+- image.xml
+- comment.{txt,html,xml}
+- layer1.png (stored uncompressed)
+- layer1.1.png
+- layer2.png
+- image-thumbnail.png (optional)
+- whole-image.png (flattened image, optional)

IMO this is a sane approach. It has lots of benefits:
- image contents are accessible without a GIMP
- thumbnails can be extracted easily
- a user can mess with the image
- images could be generated with external tools
  (just create the XML, add some images as layers, here you are)
- it could be scanned for Java-viruses :->

Bye, Tino.

             * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? *
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to