[CREATE] assets library

[Kai-Uwe Behrmann]

Am 28.09.07, 20:31 +0200 schrieb Cyrille Berger:

> > > I don't know about ICC enought to comment. But HTML do not allow
> > > extension on the spec, it's just that some main stream web browsers have
> > > extension to the spec, meaning some websites use them, meaning other web
> > > browsers have to cope finding information for the extension, while 99% of
> > > what is in the extension could have been done with a full implementation
> > > of the spec. TIFF and OpenEXR, I can't count people asking us to support
> > > one of this undocumented extension.
> >
> > In text formats, if no other meachanism is provided, often new things
> > start to appear in comments ;-)
> yeah :) or tags are added anyway. But I am offering a mechanism, comes here to 
> ask for the change !

You mean to include in the spec?

> > For instance the ICC profile in Tiff (v6.0 1992) is defined in the ICC
> > spec (1995?) not vice versa. Tiff was easy enough extensible to do such
> > things, Exif, geo referencing ... Ok, Adobe registers new TIFF tags on
> > request. But this makes no new standard.
> Sure and they don't require documentation, so half of those tags are only used 
> by a few applications.

This is always the case. But better having a common base than people 
switching to something completely different. For ICC it is documented and 
well supported.

> > Blender with its layer and compositing stack, exhibited in the OpenEXR
> > images is nowhere described in the OpenEXR spec. Even though it is
> > possible with this format.
> Yes and now people are asking for Krita to support multilayer OpenEXR and I 
> have a hard time finding information. While with a central place with all the 

You can step throu CinePaint's OpenEXR plug-in since 0.22-x.
Basically one have to parse channel names and point '.' separators and 
form the layers. I putted everything in a layer and omitted the inbetween 
structure. It is just saved later again. It is not a 1:1 mapping.

What problems do you see with that?

> information it's much easier ;) And from what I have heard, the multi layer 
> things is supposed to move into the spec.

Interessting

> I could also add as an example, Exif, which includes a field where 
> manufacturer are allowed to insert whatever data they want, and some of them 
> are inserting metadata in that field which could be described in the spec.

That behaviour is a big problem general with camera workflows. The 
software makes often a difference. So companies feel a need to protect 
their buissness knowledge. As soon as a good common place software makes 
such differences equal, the secrets become nonsense.

The same with many other workflows.

> I do think the create group is a reasonnable group so that if someone wants 
> something, I think it will be easily added.

This would lead to a basic and a extended section in the specification. 
A basic reader has to support just sRGB and names. 
A extended reader/writer has all possibilities and should write only  
understood things inside the colour descriptions.

kind regards
Kai-Uwe Behrmann
--
developing for colour management 
www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org + www.cinepaint.org