Hello,

Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.

I'll add to what Tobias said: I don't think that HTML rendering is necessary. Let's look for a moment on what HTML can do:

1. Render images in specific locations with/without borders - GIMP can obviously render images in certain places, abd borders can be added manually for now (or automatically when GEGL will be fully integrated and will allow what you may know from photoshop as layer effects)

2. Render containers of different colors - We are waiting for vector layers in GIMP. The code for creating vector layers exists in fact, but we need someone that will integrate it with the current source

3. Render text in very special ways - Have you looked at the text engine of GIMP 2.7.1? It can do almost all of the text effects you can do in HTML. The only missing thing is multicolored text and this is a patch I'll finish when I have time (should probably be this month).

If I understand the gist of his proposition/fantasy, the idea is the ultimately his image editor would have a feature that can import, present and edit html elements as components of a layer.

I don't see GIMP becoming an HTML editor - not only because there is no one with time to develop this (building an html editor is lots of work), but also because this isn't GIMP's product vision. GIMP is meant to be a high-end image manipulation/creating program, and not an application for designing web interfaces (and coding them). I don't see anything wrong with the current workflow of designing a web interface graphically in GIMP, slicing it to small images and then coding it. Adding HTML editing abilities to GIMP will make it overloaded with features, and at least for me - I love the fact that unlike photoshop, GIMP is simple. I don't want overcomplicated interfaces just to get more features - I want a program which I can use quickly and easily.

~ LightningIsMyName

On 7/31/10, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote:

Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.

I don't see any use cases where that would help.

Then you might want to read up on recent trends in web programming. You see, these days CSS can do a lot of stuff that used to be done with layer effects and whatnot in Photoshop before: gradient overlays, rounded rectangles, inset text and so on. And CSS is a standard.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On 7/31/10, LightningIsMyName wrote:

I don't see GIMP becoming an HTML editor - not only because there is no one with time to develop this (building an html editor is lots of work), but also because this isn't GIMP's product vision.

Really? So GIMP is suddenly not the tool for web developers? :)

GIMP is meant to be a high-end image manipulation/creating program, and not an application for designing web interfaces (and coding them).

Who said that?

I love the fact that unlike photoshop, GIMP is simple.

There are millions of people out there who think otherwise :)

I don't want overcomplicated interfaces just to get more features

What makes you think this would be overcomplicated?

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

bob wrote:

Smashing magazine linked to an interesting blog entry, where John Nack discusses the possibility of HTML layers in photoshop.

If I understand the gist of his proposition/fantasy, the idea is the ultimately his image editor would have a feature that can import, present and
edit html elements as components of a layer.

I remember skimming that article.

I thought immediately of what the GIMP team said during the discussion of the product vision.

I brought up 'what about making mock-ups of web pages?' after a serious look at what it means to support that (like pro-grade html generation, support for fluid layouts), the team clearly felt that this is not what they wanted GIMP to be.

so there is an explicit 'no' for GIMP as a web design tool.

there is an explicit 'yes' for GIMP as a production tool for all graphics that are used on a website. This does mean that there needs to be better support for this, like automated cutting and exporting of all the parts from a working canvas, much more than the hack-ish slicing we have right now.

--ps

founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works

http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture

On 7/31/10, peter sikking wrote:

so there is an explicit 'no' for GIMP as a web design tool.

You probably meant web programming :)

there is an explicit 'yes' for GIMP as a production tool for all graphics that are used on a website. This does mean that there needs to be better support for this, like automated cutting and exporting of all the parts from a working canvas, much more than the hack-ish slicing we have right now.

But that would also involve saving information about slicing in XCF or whatever comes after current XCF, because one really doesn't want to do all the work over and over again.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

It wouldn't be much harder to support html layers than to support text layers, if it
were possible to link to a library that would do the rendering. The problem, as somebody
pointed out earlier, is that html was never designed to be rendered in a definite way. The
idea is really misguided -- html is basically a way of doing vector graphics but without
fully specifying the output. What is desirable is to have maximally powerful vector layers,
and that basically means supporting SVG layers, something that is already seen as a goal.

-- Bill

Hello,

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On 7/31/10, LightningIsMyName wrote:

I don't see GIMP becoming an HTML editor - not only because there is no one with time to develop this (building an html editor is lots of work), but also because this isn't GIMP's product vision.

Really? So GIMP is suddenly not the tool for web developers? :)

GIMP is meant to be a high-end image manipulation/creating program, and not an application for designing web interfaces (and coding them).

Who said that?

I don't say that I agree with that, but that is from the UI redesign wiki: http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign#product_vision If we follow what's listed there then GIMP isn't a tool for generating/editing html code with graphics and stuff. As peter said:

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:38 PM, peter sikking wrote:

I thought immediately of what the GIMP team said during the discussion of the product vision.

I brought up 'what about making mock-ups of web pages?' after a serious look at what it means to support that (like pro-grade html generation, support for fluid layouts), the team clearly felt that this is not what they wanted GIMP to be.

so there is an explicit 'no' for GIMP as a web design tool.

there is an explicit 'yes' for GIMP as a production tool for all graphics that are used on a website. This does mean that there needs to be better support for this, like automated cutting and exporting of all the parts from a working canvas, much more than the hack-ish slicing we have right now.

I don't agree with some of the product vision points as stated in the UI redesign wiki and by some developers (for example that GIMP is meant mainly for high end users and less for "simple" users - as we discussed on IRC yesterday), but I do agree on this point. GIMP is an image editining/authoring tool and not a web tool for coding and designing websites.

I don't want overcomplicated interfaces just to get more features

What makes you think this would be overcomplicated?

Expirience taught me that lots of features *usually* mean more complicated interfaces. Let's hope that I'm wrong and we can keep the interface simple if/when we add this =)

~LightningIsMyName

I'm just starting to learn what it takes to be a GIMP developer so this is more from a user's perspective.

In my mind an hmtl layer would serve the same function as a text layer, except that it would provide formatted text. It would be nice if could be stored and edited as html then rendered on the fly.

I don't see GIMP becoming an html editor and I don't see a use for much of html such as links and forms but a rich text environment that could do tables, multiple fonts, multiple colors.... as a separate layer that could be edited in the original format would be pretty cool.

HTML is a decent markup language and the undefined rendering attribute could be ignored. In our case all rendering attributes would be defined by our implementation. The end result for me would still be exported single layer images.

Joe

On 08/01/2010 09:25 AM, Joseph Areeda wrote:

In my mind an hmtl layer would serve the same function as a text layer, except that it would provide formatted text. It would be nice if could be stored and edited as html then rendered on the fly.

Hi,

If you want more powerful formating of text layers, the solution is to improve text layers, not add HTML layers.

Have you tried GIMP from git? It has been made possible to do per-character formating in text layers there.

Regards, Martin

bob wrote:

But I find it an interesting idea that, if it possible to implement in an image editor, could help smooth the process of designing web application front-ends.

Anyway, I'm just putting it out there to you guys to see what you think.

It might be possible to provide some form of HTML editing in GIMP via a plug-in (especially once GEGL is more fully a part of GIMP) but I don't see it as something that should be added as an integral part of GIMP.

Creating a decent GUI based HTML editor is a non-trivial task. I have yet to see an HTML editor I like better than vi. I have seen HTML editors that will let you link to an external editor when you need to edit an image that will be appearing in a page.

If you really want to edit HTML in a program, use a program designed primarily for that purpose and use its hooks to invoke GIMP when you need it rather than trying to make an image editing program capable of doing page layout.

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:

Have you tried GIMP from git? It has been made possible to do per-character formating in text layers there.

What format does it save the per-character formatting in? Would HTML be an option?

Understanding even a subset of the basic HTML1 tags plus could likely be a good 80% solution. That's not to say that it's easy ( the most obvious problem), but HTML is a decent way to store stylized text.

Chris

Hello

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Christopher Curtis wrote:

What format does it save the per-character formatting in?  Would HTML be an option?

Understanding even a subset of the basic HTML1 tags plus could likely be a good 80% solution.  That's not to say that it's easy ( the most obvious problem), but HTML is a decent way to store stylized text.

GIMP supports some of the features described in the pango markup - see http://library.gnome.org/devel/pango/stable/PangoMarkupFormat.html. Currently, this includes the following per-character control: Font, Size, Spacing, bold, italic, underline, strikethrough, baseline (raising/lowring the caracter) and when I'll have more time it will also include color.

~LightningIsMyName

Lightning wrote:

I don't agree with some of the product vision points as stated in the UI redesign wiki and by some developers (for example that GIMP is meant mainly for high end users and less for "simple" users - as we discussed on IRC yesterday)

well, that is a tricky thing to say.

It was the core GIMP team that was there at the first LGM, and they were really sure about this. The vision is not my thing, I was only there at that moment to function as a catalyst to get the vision on the table.

So it really does not matter whether you or I agree if GIMP should be what is says in the vision. Because it is going to be what it says in the vision anyway. It is going to be UI designed and developed in that way, because GIMP as a project wants to to go there. Anything that gets done in another direction is just a detour and a (ultimately) a waste of time because it will get corrected in the long run.

and no, the vision cannot be changed on the hoof, because most of the work that has been done since that first LGM and now would have the be redone.

--ps

founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works

http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture

Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On 7/31/10, peter sikking wrote:

so there is an explicit 'no' for GIMP as a web design tool.

You probably meant web programming :)

no I really meant the web design job: deciding how all information and interaction is gong to be represented on the page, how the layout handle fluid conditions of resizing browser width and browser font resizing. all the typography and readability. that combined with the 'master' visual design from which all the pages will be produced, at which point all the images for a site will be produced (which is where GIMP comes in).

there is an explicit 'yes' for GIMP as a production tool for all graphics that are used on a website. This does mean that there needs to be better support for this, like automated cutting and exporting of all the parts from a working canvas, much more than the hack-ish slicing we have right now.

But that would also involve saving information about slicing in XCF or whatever comes after current XCF, because one really doesn't want to do all the work over and over again.

yep, one or more 'cutting masks' would be part of the file, because the (perhaps overlapping) rectangles where to cut are gonna be different for every file.

--ps

founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works

http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture