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 now, and has
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 the
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 HACKING and
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 possible
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
EXIF data and
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
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
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 names of
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 gimp
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: Segmentation fault
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 02:11:28PM +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 to
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,
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
