On 19/09/06, Warren Baird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dotan Cohen wrote: > > On 19/09/06, Sam Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> As I see it a picture belongs to an album and a tag belongs to a > >> picture, not the other way round. I think this distinction is > >> fundamental. A tag is just an arbitrary piece of meta data, an album is > >> some kind of container. > > > > Also here, I agree with you. By that thinking, a picture could belong > > to only one single album, which I happen to agree with. Hwoever, that > > was frowned upon on the list. I personally like the idea. > > I don't follow your logic... If "a picture belongs to an album" > implies that each picture can only belong to one album, does that mean > "a tag belongs to a picture" mean that each tag can only belong to one > picture?
Yes, I saw this hole when I wrote it. From a technical point of view, as the tag information is stored in each photo, then the photo information should be stored in each album, and not the other way around. Thus, a photo would not have any information regarding to which album it belongs to. The "album" would be an XML file that specifies what pictures belong to it. It would also contain the information regarding order of the pictures. This way sounds best. It also avoids the problem of transfering photos from one user's library to another user's library. Ben might have an album named Birthday, and Shirly may have an album named Birthday. If Ben has a photo in his Birthday album, and the album information is stored in the photo itself, then when he sends the photo to Shirly it will magically appear in her Birthday album as well. She might not want that. For that matter, this must be the case currently with the tags. I'll think of some suggestions for the problem and file a bug. Dotan Cohen _______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
