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. > (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. Today I saw another reason for XCF to be taken more seriously as an interchange format by the GIMP developers (or at least to document the format and its effects better). In rec.photo.digital somebody wrote in the thread 'IMatch cataloger / workflow questions' about XCF support for a program called Imatch. The poster would like to see this support, because he keeps edits of his digital photos as .xcf files, IMO an altogether sensible use of the format. And of course, a catalogue program should be able to deal with XCF files then. I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for that. -- branko collin collin@xxxxxxxxx
