On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 15:50 +1030, David Gowers wrote:
> I think we would have to. At least, in my vision, where we want
> GIH/GBR to be eventually deprecated in preference of SVG. This would
> require 2 things:
> a) support multiple brushes in a SVG brush file, ala GIH (presumably
> a group for each brush)
How useful are brush pipes (or image hoses) really? As far as I can see
their primary use is for simulating brush transformations. We can
already do that better on the fly.
> b) support including ranks etc. information in the SVG brush file.
> IMO a GIMP-specific XML element is appropriate here, for that and
> brush rendering type information as you said. Probably require a
> specific naming scheme, to simplify implementation of ranks.
> For bitmap images in SVG brush files (eg. for patterning), we will
> probably want to use embedded images. Eventually for parametrizable
> brushes, we'll want to support external bitmap references (in which
> case we'll need to consider how to ensure that the user gets the right
> resources and that reference links are resolved correctly (probably
> relative to the .gimp-2.X/ toplevel directory)).
Why don't we just use PNG files for bitmap brushes?
Gimp-developer mailing list