[CREATE] OpenRaster reference library - libora

Cyrille Berger cberger at cberger.net
Thu Jan 21 08:01:14 PST 2010

On Thursday 21 January 2010, you wrote:
> >> So far I have left out filters and such, because I am not aware (call
> >> me ignorant if you wish) of any application that would use them very
> >> intensively.
> >
> > Well krita does since 1.5, and next version of Gimp will. But, both of
> > them might not be the main customers of your library, at least for Krita,
> > which has already its own facilities for open raster.
> It is not _my_ library :D Anyway ... in what language is Krita open
> raster support written in?
All of krita is written in C++ and using QtXML, I don't think anything can be 

> >> For now my plans are to add thumbnail support and global metadata (are
> >> there any specifications on that?) ...
> >
> > No, not yet. I think we are aiming at support for RDF/XMP, with something
> > like that:
> >
> > <layer ... metadata="data/layer1metadata.xmp" />
> > and
> > <image ... metadata="data/imagemetadata.rdf" />
> >
> > Unless we want to have more than one metadata file per-layer, and do
> > something like:
> > <layer ...>
> >  <metadata type="xmp" file="data/layer1metadata.xmp" />
> >  <metadata type="rdf" file="data/layer1metadata.rdf" />
> > </layer>
> This sounds like it is still being discussed. And I think this is the
> main problem of the standard or the proposal ... almost nothing is
> fixed.
What is in the drafts is fixed.

> I really have little interest in implementing something that
> does not have some consensus and formalization ... one can hardly call
> it a standard then. What I am trying to propose from the beginning
> (and nobody wants to comment apparently) is that some simple version
> of the standard is formalized and everything that is still discussed
> is postponed. We insert some version identifier in the format and call
> the current standard version 1.0 for example.
I would be fined with that.

> Then we start from there
> and make things more complex. As the most evolved applications (like
> Gimp and Krita) use their own formats I see no problem with that ...

One of the goal for us, in Krita, is to replace our own format with 

> and we can finally have some final version of the standard that can be
> used by all the more simple specialized applications to gain at least
> basic data-connectivity with ... lets say Gimp.

Cyrille Berger

More information about the CREATE mailing list