If an extension were going to be recommended along the lines of "sxr", there
would also need to be some guidance as to when to use the extension at all.
Given the alembic-like nature of 2.0 format files, does a deep extension mean
there is exactly one deep image, or no non-deep images, or that the data is
"primarily" deep data? Should stereo deep images be .dsxr? What should an
application reading a 2.0 file expect differently if the file has a deep
extension? So now there will be three extensions for the same file format that
all just serve as hints, but that make no difference to reader programs? Of
course not all readers will be able to process deep data, but they still need
to be able to handle the fact that they could get a .exr file containing deep
images that they need to ignore. I like .sxr, but it works because it has a
much more narrow definition of what is contained in the file.
I say welcome to the new world of 2.0 where .exr might mean anything, and put
whatever info you want about the contents into the file name or directory name.
:) Soon enough (if not already at some places) most data except at the very end
of the pipe is going to be deep anyway, so if a new extension is used then
practically nothing will be called .exr, which seems like it kind of defeats
the purpose.
-Jonathan
________________________________
From: David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com>
To: Christian Bloch <blo...@blochi.com>
Cc: openexr-devel@nongnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Openexr-devel] Established deep data file extension?
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Christian Bloch <blo...@blochi.com> wrote:
> Well, I would think the diaspora spread is rather unofficial and hasn't gone
> too far, and Weta's in-house usage can still be considered proprietary. So at
> this very moment the legacy support is still restricted to a very limited
> group.
>
> Consider this the last chance of altering the file extension to something
> memorizable. In a year's time that chance is gone. I do think sticking to the
> *xr template makes a whole lot more sense in the long run. Chances of
> confusion with director files is rather minimal, so even .dxr would be
> appropriate.
foo.dexr
MS-DOS is dead as disco so hopefully we aren't limited to 7.3 filenames.
--
David
_______________________________________________
Openexr-devel mailing list
Openexr-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
_______________________________________________
Openexr-devel mailing list
Openexr-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
