Stephen J Baker wrote:
It seems to me that XML was just *made* to do (1) nicely. It's also
rather
nice that this is human readable and the parsers for it are likely to
be easy.
XML is nice and modern and there are loads of supporters of it. I
don't think
this should even be a matter of debate
Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
I never understood the reasoning for this discussion anyway. IMHO the
format that Nathan suggested seems like something from the dark ages of
file formats (where TIFF and the like originated from).
PNG is something f
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:10:37PM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> point where no image manipulation program has gone before. However there
> is still the need for a good format for exchanging layered images
> between applications. So perhaps it makes sense to also develop such an
Hi,
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 22:58, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
> > I haven't heard a single good argument for it except that it can do
> > most of the things that the XML/archive approach can do.
>
> s/most/all, and many other good things besides.
Which are?
> > There was however nothing mention
At 1:58 PM -0700 8/14/03, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
XML is a text markup language. If the designers thought of using it for
raster graphics, it was an afterthought at best.
Completely agreed. Putting image data into the XML would be bad...
The XML/archive idea is the software equivalent of
ma
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:32:00PM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
| But on this new thread were proprietary formats batle along with mutant
| ideas, here I go:
| Why not settle for a Postscript subset?
PostScript is a proprietary format controlled by Adobe. Adobe has several
patents on various a
Sven Neumann wrote:
I never understood the reasoning for this discussion anyway. IMHO the
format that Nathan suggested seems like something from the dark ages of
file formats (where TIFF and the like originated from). I haven't heard
a single good argument for it except that it can do most of the
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never understood the reasoning for this discussion anyway. IMHO the
> format that Nathan suggested seems like something from the dark ages of
> file formats (where TIFF and the like originated from).
PNG is something from the dark ages?
> I h
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
[Note: quote blocks have been reordered for clarity]
> Hi,
>
> 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 h
At 1:47 PM +0200 8/14/03, Sven Neumann wrote:
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.
Well, that pretty much settles that discussion...
So let's start talking XML + archive again, sha
Hi,
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 16:27, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> >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.
>
> Well, that pretty much settles that discussion...
>
> So le
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 07:45:33PM -0400, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
|
| Because Postscript is dead. It hasn't been updated in over 6
| years, and Adobe themselves are slowly moving towards PDF-based
| solutions, including printing.
PostScript is far from dead. You would be banishing the
Thank you for the comments.
I quite much agree with all of them, I just threw it in because I think
it'd more interesting than TIFF or PSD alltogether.
Quite informative is the part about Adobe patents.
I will no longer mention PS as a native file format, GSview is quite
good as a PS loader as i
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 1:47 PM +0200 8/14/03, Sven Neumann wrote:
> >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.
>
> Well, that pretty much settles t
At 8:32 PM -0300 8/13/03, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
People have considered TIFF, PSD in this newer thread - before the
Camp, on the list, we were almost closed in an ar archive, with XML
informatin and possibly PNG raster data inside.
Which is still a valid approach, but would DEFINITELY require
a
Hi,
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. I don't think any existing format could be sanely extended to
support complex render graphs as will be introduced with GEGL. We are
not talki
16 matches
Mail list logo