On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Gibbs wrote: > Since we're playing with names, I like width/height as they are, but I > wouldn't have used the terms "full_width" and ""full_height", > preferring "display_width", etc.
If starting from scratch today, I probably wouldn't have used full_width, either, perhaps favoring OpenEXR's terminology since it's so popular now. But OIIO's origins date from 10+ years ago, before OpenEXR, and so it borrows much of its nomenclature from TIFF. TIFF doesn't have an analogous concept enshrined in its spec, but Pixar had registered a custom TIFF tag that they called "PIXAR_IMAGEFULLWIDTH", which could be used to indicate that the image was a crop window on a larger "full" virtual image, or that there was padding around the logical 0-1 texture. So we just used that, since there wasn't much competition for the name at the time. If everybody desperately wants to change the name of the ImageSpec field, I could be talked into it. If multiple formats used the same nomenclature, I could be easily swayed. But currently I'm skeptical that "display_width" is just a nod to the nomenclature of a single format (OpenEXR, popular as it may be today) and also that it may not be correctly named. As you said -- is this really about "display", or is there a more general concept and name that better captures what this is used for? I'm not claiming that "full" is more descriptive, only that if we change it, I want a clear improvement beyond "that's the word OpenEXR uses." -- Larry Gritz [email protected] _______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
