On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
[Note: quote blocks have been reordered for clarity]
> I'd like to mention that none of the proposed formats except the XML
> approach would be capable of supporting the stuff we want to add to GIMP
> with GEGL.
On the contrary, my proposal would handle graphs as easily as XML would.
> We are not talking about simple layer lists or trees any longer but we
> need to be able to store complex processing intructions with each node.
> XML seems to be the only reasonable choice here.
My proposal is tree-based just like XML. And you can do graphs in it
exactly the same way it is done in XML -- by labeling elements of the tree
and using the labels to denote the links between the nodes on the graph.
> I don't think any existing format could be sanely extended to
> support complex render graphs as will be introduced with GEGL.
Depends on what you mean by "sanely extended." Of course it is unlikely
that you could create something that interoperates well with existing
applications, but there is nothing inheritly wrong with takiing an
existing format, or more than one, and using it for the basis of the new
> According the library that reads and writes the new format, GEGL should
> provide this functionality. The basic file format should be defined by
> GEGL and GIMP will only add some user interface specific things in its
> own namespace.
I can imagine that parasites, at the minimum, would also go in the GIMP
Gimp-developer mailing list