On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Manish Singh wrote: > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:11:42 -0800 > From: Manish Singh <yosh@xxxxxxxx> > To: John Cupitt <jcupitt@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: GIMPDev <gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Photoshop PSD 6 format Spec / Gimp XCF > format Spec > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:30:03PM +0000, John Cupitt wrote: > > > Of course, OpenDocument document structure (ZIP archive with multiply > > > files inside) could be followed. > > > > Yes, this sounds much more sensible. > > As a concept, yes. Actually using ZIP is a stupid decision, It is a decision with some trade-offs. I'm surprised you would dimiss it as "stupid" without knowing more about what problems they were trying to solve, obviously the smallest compression wasn't their only priority. One thing Zip has that other archive formats don't seem to have is an internal filesystem, and some files inside the zip can be more compressed than others making it a good container format. An index or manifest can be left uncompressed, whereas other files within the archive can be more heavily compressed if desired. > and I wonder what the rationale for using it was. There are more detailed explainations available (I read one very long and detailed report on it when it was first added to OpenOffice) but if you can find the list of requirements they had it should become clear. No need to say unpleasant things about OpenDocument. -- Alan H. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
