On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 08:27:12PM -0400, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
- to be able to execute some Java code out of a (virus-altered) GIMP
image (Gimp Graphics Archive) takes:
* a person running java -jar picture.gga
* some smart program looking inside the image, recognizing the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 06:19:27PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
HOWEVER, this might be a good time to think about whether we'd
prefer a compressed format that we can random-access de/compress
on the fly instead of going via a huge (and with image data we
can easily be talking HUGE)
Hi,
Christopher W. Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The nice thing about this is that it should be fully parseable by XML
parsers (up until the first NULL [1 is required, the rest are optional
I don't think the format you proposed is valid XML. There might be XML
parsers that are able to read
Hi,
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No - it's enabled by default because I thought it should be. I'm
quite sure that Sven has turned it off :)
I have it turned on so I get reminded how akward it is all the time I
use The GIMP. Actually I tried to get used to it but I still can't
stand
Sven Neumann wrote:
Christopher W. Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The nice thing about this is that it should be fully parseable by XML
parsers (up until the first NULL [1 is required, the rest are optional
I don't think the format you proposed is valid XML. There might be XML
Rule #1 in
Hi,
Christopher Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would reiterate what I said, but you quoted it. fully parseable by
XML parsers up until the first NULL. I'm not trying to jam image
data into an XML format - simply prepending an XML header and using
NULL as a separator. This means you
Manish Singh wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 12:06:12PM -0400, Christopher Curtis wrote:
Rule #1 in brainstorming: don't criticise any idea, no matter how silly.
So much for rules...
Another downside: needing a special tool to manipulate it.
Well, now, I want to end this silliness right here.
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
But you couldn't use any generic XML tools like validators or XSL
transformations. If we go for XML we should really make sure that we
make it proper XML, otherwise XML doesn't make sense at all. We could
then as well go for a sexp syntax. Actually the latter would be a
Hi,
I've created a little patch against GIMP 1.2.5 to allow dithering of
gradients, which significantly improves their appearance when printed.
If you're interested, you can find out more here:
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/dithergrad.shtml
Comments/criticism welcome
All the best,
--
Ok ..
I want to apologise to everyone for overreacting. After a brief moment
of reflection, a simple container has notable advantages over a single
file, not to mention that a one of my assumptions didn't make sense.
Where is there documentation on the ar format? I can't seem to find
any.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-07-17 at 0959.32 +0200):
Brainstorming, a dir named .xcf2 with the proposed contents inside? :]
Would probably cause problems (ie. be cumbersome) copying, moving around on
the web, etc. :-) We aren't quite at reiser4 yet. :-)
Well, I think people can copy dirs like
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we really are in brainstorming mode here, following the suggestions
listed above, how about a format something like the following, which is
essentially just an XML preamble, followed by raw binary data:
The nice thing about this is that it
Sven Neumann wrote:
Alastair Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've created a little patch against GIMP 1.2.5 to allow dithering of
gradients, which significantly improves their appearance when printed.
If you're interested, you can find out more here:
Alan Horkan wrote:
It is far better not to XML at all than to break XML.
(incidentally this is similar to what has been suggested for Cinepaint).
Just for the record ... I read the CinePaint file format, and it doesn't
even resemble XML. My PREAMBLE is valid XML. If they implement what
they
Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see a compelling argument to use zip/jar. It's complexity that
doesn't buy us anything over ar.
$ ar t gimp1.2-print_4.2.5-4_i386.deb
debian-binary
control.tar.gz
data.tar.gz
The Debian dpkg .deb package format uses an ar archive with gzip
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Roger Leigh wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:22:17 +0100
From: Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alan Horkan [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: new-xcf [Re: Gimp-developer Digest, Vol 10,
Issue
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Christopher Curtis wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:10:02 -0400
From: Christopher Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alan Horkan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: new-xcf [Re: Gimp-developer Digest, Vol 10,
Issue 18]
It is far
On 07/17/03 19:41, Alan Horkan wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Christopher Curtis wrote:
even resemble XML. My PREAMBLE is valid XML. If they implement what
they have written, they don't even bother with things like closing tags
or putting parameters in quotes.
A preamble, which is
At 5:35 PM +0200 7/16/03, Sven Neumann wrote:
I don't think we should use a compressed archive. Instead the binary
data in the archive should be compressed.
I agree - and that's what ZIP/JAR allow for - some
files/blobs are compressed, and some are not. You could either use
the built-in
At 5:10 PM -0400 7/17/03, Christopher Curtis wrote:
Just for the record ... I read the CinePaint file format, and it
doesn't even resemble XML.
Yeah, I've had that argument with Robin - and lost :(.
They are going for simple and scriptable over good design - I
think they will regret it ver
20 matches
Mail list logo
