Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 6:29 PM +0200 8/14/03, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
> >Then you jsut want to be able to understand the XML file, which is the
> >reason I proposed using something like xml in the first place, the rest
> >of the logic would then be contained in your application.
>
> Well, yes, I need to understand the FILE FORMAT...whether
> that be XML, PNG, TIFF, XCF, etc.
>
> But there seems to be a general belief that there should be a
> standard library for reading/writing the file format to help reduce
> the issues of multiple implementations. That library shoudl ONLY be
> a file format handler, it should NOT be all of GEGL...
Surely this is a detail, and the important thing, that is using
some kind of metadata manifest, with binary image data stored in
some widely supproted image format, is something we can agree on?
Whether gegl provides a separate libxcf or not is surely a detail
that can be taken care of at the implementation stage...
That said, since the general idea is to store layer structure in
the image data, and use compositing to generate the final image,
libxcf would require access to quite a lot of gegl's internal
workings most of the time... at least if the destination
application wanted to use gegl for composing. Of course, if they
wanted to work around gegl, and use a native layer model, then
they wouldn't need to get at gegl's graphing stuff at all. But
they'd be limiting themselves more or less to stacks, or very
simple trees.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
