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 -- Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.foxbox.org/ co:3 _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
