On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
> Raphael wrote:
> > There are several reasons for using individual parasites for each
> > part of the EXIF data instead of using a single parasite including
> > the whole structure:
>
> [snipped points]
>
> Your points all have merit. My problem is no
Raphael Quinet wrote:
> The only thing that is missing is a standard list of names and types
> for all parasites.
{docs|devel-docs}/parasites.txt
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-devel
Is it pretty much definitely compilable and runnable by
mortals right now (funtionality aside)? What additions
have there been to the list of **essential** build libs/components
since 1.2.x?
I ask because I want to get this rgb->indexed rewrite out
of my tree before it rots even further and I'd
Raphael wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
> > Your points all have merit. My problem is now, and has always
been,
> > that a parasite per piece of data would mean adding an extra 50
or 60
> > parasites which would be relatively persistent. That makes things
> > pretty complicated,
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, Adam D. Moss wrote:
> Raphael Quinet wrote:
> > The only thing that is missing is a standard list of names and types
> > for all parasites.
>
> {docs|devel-docs}/parasites.txt
Err... Right. I knew that the file existed (I took a look at it the
last time we discussed th
Hi,
"Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it pretty much definitely compilable and runnable by
> mortals right now (funtionality aside)? What additions
> have there been to the list of **essential** build libs/components
> since 1.2.x?
yes, it should compile. As usual the files HACKI
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
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
> Parasite naming is non-standard. Anyone can create a parasite with any
> name they want. [...]
> Where *is* the list of parasites? There are only (as you point out)
> about 10 persistent parasites, and the list isn't maintained anywhere.
> One possibl
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 14:50, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> The only
> thing that should be checked is the usage of the "gimp-*" names, which
> should have a pre-defined name and type.
There are currently only one or two pre-defined names and types that
relate to EXIF data. Once you have defined the par
On Tue, 06 Feb 2002, Adam D. Moss wrote:
> 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
> > EX
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~njl98r/chocbox1.png
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~njl98r/chocbox2.png
A potential UI for a textual metadata editor using Dublin Core's element
names (and of course internally it could use any parasite names that
were deemed fit, but since parasite names are arbitrary tex
Raphael Quinet wrote:
> > Also fair enough, though I'd consider prefixing these with exif-
> > or similar to avoid polluting gimp-* forever.
>
> If I am still following you correctly, this means that all parts of
> the EXIF data that should not be persistent
Sorry, I wasn't clear -- I wasn't r
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 16:06, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> Thanks. I will have a look at it as soon as possible. But as I wrote
> previously and as Dave agreed, it would probably make more sense to
> merge this code directly into the JPEG plug-in instead of requiring an
> additional library.
As this
Nick Lamb wrote:
> One thing I can't seem to find out (maybe I'm looking in the wrong
place)
> is whether EXIF data is supposed to follow derived works or not.
Some
> contributors to this thread seemed to feel that it was important
that
> a Gimp image must always preserve the EXIF data, but this w
Raphael wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
> > Where *is* the list of parasites? There are only (as you point
out)
> > about 10 persistent parasites, and the list isn't maintained
anywhere.
>
> OK, so now the problem is clear: we need a way to enforce some
> consistency for the name
Sven Neumann wrote:
> yes, it should compile. As usual the files HACKING and INSTALL mention
> the build requirements. In particular these are:
[snip]
Thanks. Well, 6 hours later I have gimp 1.3 built! Yay!
Naturally, it crashes on startup. Boo! After trying to
'ok' the second page of the gim
Hi Adam,
"Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks. Well, 6 hours later I have gimp 1.3 built! Yay!
> Naturally, it crashes on startup. Boo! After trying to
> 'ok' the second page of the gimp user installation wizard
> I get this:
> mct:~> gimp-1.3
> gimp-1.3: fatal error: Segmenta
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Nick Lamb wrote:
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~njl98r/chocbox2.png
^^^
Looks very nice, but please, please call the last field "Copyright"
instead of "Digital Rights Management."
Rockwlrs
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
> If we go with the more generic "metadata" option, then we would have
> the option of gimp-metadata-*. But that's minutiae at the moment.
Isn't the fact that it's a parasite "metadata-y" enough? I suppose it's
possible to attach a parasite to an image for
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:17:21PM +0100, Raphael Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> EXIF data and simply copy the descriptions given in the EXIF standard.
> 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 form
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Parasite naming is non-standard. Anyone can create a parasite with any
> name they want.
Untrue. Names beginning with "gimp-" are well-defined as belonging to the
core. The gimp itself must, at one point, know how t
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:41:17PM +0100, Lutz Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It would be _really_ easy if you used the tag names for those parasites,
> i.e. gimp-exif-FillOrder or gimp-exif-SpectralSensitivity.
while i am not strictly opposed, these names are very ugly. more
important, th
Hi,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes:
> But parasites _is_ one metadata structure. I don't see why nesting etadata
> structures inside each other is a good thing - to me it only complicates
> things. parasites were created for metadata. If they don't work well
> enough for that
23 matches
Mail list logo
