On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote: > 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. In a well documented way, I hope, so that the ImageMagick people can support the new format without too much trouble. > (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. My guess IM already has to do similar things for PSD. Admittedly, I only took a brief look at the PSD specs and the PSD load plug-in of GIMP, but they did not seem to be too different (with the exception of course of PS features of version 5 and newer). > (3) Because GIMP can export it's images in a whole bunch of formats > ImageMagick and other programs can handle perfectly well. As mentioned, not in a way that will keep layers and such. -- branko collin collin@xxxxxxxxx
