Raphael Quinet wrote:
> But it needs to be extended with all the names of the EXIF parasites.
> So I will try to do that this week.  Basically, I think that it would
> be enough to use the name "gimp-blah" for each "blah" field of the
> EXIF data and simply copy the descriptions given in the EXIF standard.

Fair enough, though if a parasite is going in the general-purpose
gimp-* namespace care should probably be taken not to impose
constraints specific to the EXIF form of that metadata upon
a more general-purpose gimp-wide version.

> Some of the fields will have to be discarded (or set read-only or not
> persistent) because they only make sense for the original file format
> and are irrelevant once the image is converted to an RGB bitmap.

Also fair enough, though I'd consider prefixing these with exif-
or similar to avoid polluting gimp-* forever.

FWIW I'm in favour of splitting out individual general-purpose
parasites rather than a monolithic EXIF parasite.

Adam D. Moss    . ,,^^    [EMAIL PROTECTED]    http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to