Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-15 Thread Sven Neumann
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 mentioned that

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-15 Thread pcg
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 I

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-15 Thread Carol Spears
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-15 Thread Carol Spears
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Sven Neumann
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Leonard Rosenthol
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Nathan Carl Summers
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 that

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Joao S. O. Bueno
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Leonard Rosenthol
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,

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Nathan Carl Summers
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Mukund
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Nathan Carl Summers
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Stephen J Baker
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Mukund
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] Portable XFC

2003-08-14 Thread Leonard Rosenthol
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