"David Gowers" <00a...@gmail.com>
>I want to make this clear: In English language 'create a new imagine'
>is nonsense. imagine is a verb, as in 'I imagine I am eating a juicy
>watermelon'; it's an action, not a thing.
>'image' is the noun, you can 'create a new image' or 'modify the active
>All of the instances I have seen where you used the word 'imagine',
>'image' was the appropriate word.
>Personally, I often find your use of 'imagine' confusing, so I think
>you could improve the readability of your posts and how many people
>respond by making this change.
OOPSS..you are right,thank to point this out
Too bad i can't correct my previous post i will avoid in the future
I hope my poor english will not destroy the quality my arguments
Many ,if not most of the younger users of Gimp,begin to use gimp to create Sigs
,so they must immediately face this kind of usability issues.
I want make clear that i do not expect the Gimp staff spending energy and
wasting time to fix that..i hope "old mess" be no a impolite word
What i hope is a agreement on the principle:
a division between Image-Scripts and Toolbox scripts has no more sense now.
Since same script may offer the all the options needed, there is no reason to
split a good ,flexible script, in 2 scripts each offering less then half of the
Then if there is a agreement on this point most of the work of updating may be
done by volunteers, as was done by volunteers (and result grouped by FX-Foundry
) the work to update the custom script from gimp 2.2 to 2.4
Just the guideline has to be set
i believe a script should offer all the most logic options for input (if not a
render script) and for output
And in case of "Logos-related" scripts should have options to use as input a
text layer AND/OR to create a new text on the fly with user's chosen font
and to output the result where the user wish.
What prevent this seems no limitations of script fu, but exigence of
categorization that may be now obsolete
Gimp-developer mailing list