On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:07 PM, gfxuser <gfx.user@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was also wondering why not XML. IIRC image processing in GEGL is > internally represented by a tree (correct me if I'm wrong). Are YAML and > JSON able to handle this, better than a native tree format like XML? Look at the examples. They are JSON and YAML versions of docs/gallery/clones.xml from GEGL source tree. No problem with this. Hopefully you can see that the JSON and YAML versions are more readable. On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Jon Nordby <jononor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why does it need a new one? I am not saying it does not, but I think > the justification/rationale/usecases is necessary to have a reasonable > discussion and end-result. Of course. I'm not aware why pippin and Bat´O were interested in a new format but the problem for me was how nodes are connected in the current format. Stacked nodes go input -> output and child node's output is connected to the parent's aux. You can't use operations with aux2 this way. _______________________________________________ gegl-developer-list mailing list gegl-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list
