From Alexandre:
There are many ways to make yourself useful for the project.
I'm trying to do just that.
Someone, an end user, emailed me off-list, talking about how they'd be upset
with a new rendering, talking of lost files.
Let me offer a cheap and simple solution. Release an incremental
Compile and end-user. Not all en-users compile their version of Gimp.
Bumping the version number in XCF and implementing the compatibility would
probably be better.
- Originele e-mail -
Van: Charlie De charlieco...@yahoo.com
Aan: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Verzonden:
Compile and end-user. Not all en-users compile their version of Gimp.
Bumping the version number in XCF and implementing the compatibility would
probably be better.
Of course. But I had the impression the development cost of such a solution
and
the need to keep XCF unchanged were major
Hi guys.
Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack
discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.
If I understand the gist of his proposition/fantasy, the idea is the
ultimately his image editor would have a feature that can import, present and
edit html
Apologies - I forgot to link to the articles in question:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/07/29/in-defense-of-photoshop/
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/06/feedback_please_html5_layers_in_photoshop.html
--
bob (via www.gimpusers.com)
___
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Charlie De charlieco...@yahoo.com wrote:
Compile and end-user. Not all en-users compile their version of Gimp.
Bumping the version number in XCF and implementing the compatibility would
probably be better.
Of course. But I had the impression the
Am Samstag, 31. Juli 2010 schrub bob:
Hi guys.
Hey.
Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack
discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.
If I understand the gist of his proposition/fantasy, the idea is the
ultimately his image editor would have a
Hello,
Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack
discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.
I'll add to what Tobias said: I don't think that HTML rendering is necessary.
Let's look for a moment on what HTML can do:
1. Render images in specific
On 7/31/10, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote:
Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack
discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.
I don't see any use cases where that would help.
Then you might want to read up on recent trends in web programming.
You see,
On 7/31/10, LightningIsMyName wrote:
I don't see GIMP becoming an HTML editor - not only because there is
no one with time to develop this (building an html editor is lots of
work), but also because this isn't GIMP's product vision.
Really? So GIMP is suddenly not the tool for web developers?
bob wrote:
Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack
discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.
If I understand the gist of his proposition/fantasy, the idea is the
ultimately his image editor would have a feature that can import,
present and
edit
On 7/31/10, peter sikking wrote:
so there is an explicit 'no' for GIMP as a web design tool.
You probably meant web programming :)
there is an explicit 'yes' for GIMP as a production tool for
all graphics that are used on a website. This does mean that
there needs to be better support for
Hi,
there has been a discussion, in 2002-2004, to allow plugged-in tools.
On 2002-02-22, Sven Neumann wrote:
not discussed, but already implemented ;-) The CVS version has
preliminary support for pluggable tools that can be either loaded as
a plug-in (separate process) or as a module. I
Hi Roland
On 07/31/2010 02:32 PM, Roland Lutz wrote:
Hi,
there has been a discussion, in 2002-2004, to allow plugged-in tools.
On 2002-02-22, Sven Neumann wrote:
not discussed, but already implemented ;-) The CVS version has
preliminary support for pluggable tools that can be either loaded
On 7/31/10, Roland Lutz wrote:
There has been repeatedly brought up the request for in-window
applicability of the IWarp distort. Using IWarp in the preview pane is a
nuisance and much inferior to, for example, the Photoshop Liquify tool.
In fact, this has been the reason for me to consider
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 17:34 -0700, Charlie De wrote:
It's worth noting, however, that XCF is not meant to be an
archival format.
Uh, oh. Of course it is meant to be used that way. If you work on images
using layers, then saving as XCF is the only way you can archive your
work.
As others have
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 01:56 -0700, Charlie De wrote:
So go fix it in gegl. I think it was decided 4 years ago what is going to
happen to the layer mode bugs.
And my point is that wasn't such a good decision precisely because it took 4
years to get it fixed. As stated, an earlier
It wouldn't be much harder to support html layers than to support text
layers, if it
were possible to link to a library that would do the rendering. The
problem, as somebody
pointed out earlier, is that html was never designed to be rendered in a
definite way. The
idea is really misguided --
Pluggable tools would be nice, but the tool system is already set up to make
it
easy to add new ones. It's one of the easiest places in the gimp code for a
new
developer to work, although it would be a lot easier if there were more
developer
documentation. The problem with the iwarp tool wasn't
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Sven Neumann s...@gimp.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 01:56 -0700, Charlie De wrote:
And my point is that wasn't such a good decision precisely because it took 4
years to get it fixed. [...] If my line of thought had been followed 4
years ago,
GEGL
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Christopher Curtis ccurt...@gmail.com wrote:
it is custom coefficients in HSY-space:
Here's a reference to the HSY color model, since it seems uncommon,
and because when searching for gimp hsy in Google the second result
is the email I _just_ sent (!!)
I think an IWarp tool would require mechanisms in GIMP that don't
exist yet as none of the current tools, even if superficially similar
(like the smudge tool) requires them. Also, the exact way an IWarp
tool should behave should be specified before one starts coding on
it;) Yeah, getting input on
On Saturday, July 31, 2010 22:33:56 Tor Lillqvist wrote:
I think an IWarp tool would require mechanisms in GIMP that don't
exist yet as none of the current tools, even if superficially similar
(like the smudge tool) requires them.
Doing the iWarp tool in paint tool way was rejected because it
Am Samstag, 31. Juli 2010 schrub Alexandre Prokoudine:
On 7/31/10, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote:
Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack
discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.
I don't see any use cases where that would help.
Then you might
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
Should using an IWarp tool mean entering a separate mode where you
then have to apply and exit it when done? That is somewhat ugly,
isn't it?
That's how the Scissors tool works, so people are already used to it.
This way, a separate warp history
25 matches
Mail list logo
