Hi, Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > >Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for > > > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library > > > (http://www.imagemagick.org). > > > > >if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I > >guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF. > > OK, I'll bite... > > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad > idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because > GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Because no one > really uses XCF as a file format? (1) Because the XCF format may change at any time and will do so sooner or later. (2) Because to mimick the way GIMP projects its layers and channels you have to implement all layer modes which boils down to copying or reimplementing a lot of code from The GIMP. This will become worse as soon as XCF will be extended to handle text and effect layers. You will end up either rewriting or copying the GIMP core. (3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well. But then, you are free to do whatever you like and I will certainly not throw stones into your way. Salut, Sven
