On , 16 Dec 2001, Sven Neumann wrote: > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support > into various other apps will make that even more difficult. Perhaps > I'm thinking too idealistic here... What's so bad about XCF anyway? It's got a version identifier, and it's a tagged format so old loaders can skip sections they don't understand. The only problem is the fixed tile size, yes? If we need to make the tile size variable we just bump the version number and introduce a new tagged section for the tiles. Representing the same information in XML or whatever the sexy standard is this month doesn't buy us anything over what we have now. Especially since the code used in loading and saving XCF is by now fairly mature and (hopefully!) bug-free. Re-coding it is only going to introduce new bugs. See the recent article linked off Slashdot about why throwing your code away and starting again is a bad idea, using Netscape and MS Word as examples of large projects which tried to re-code from scratch and failed: Netscape went bust, and MS quietly canned the Word re-write project. We should learn from the mistakes of others :) Austin
