Re: gdk_pixbuf and comments ?

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:

> On 6 Aug 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> > 
> > > On 6 Aug 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > I think one way we discussed doing this was similar to the properties
> > > > > passed to gdk_pixbuf_save() - there would be loader-specific named
> > > > > fields you could retrieve from images.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Something like:
> > > > >  gchar *comment = gdk_pixbuf_get_extra_field (pixbuf, "comment");
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then it's a bit more extensible. That seems a bit lame though, we may
> > > > > have had the details hashed out a bit better in the past.
> > > > 
> > > > I would prefer a cleaner API, but I wouldn't object to this solution. We
> > > > could then define a small set of common property names for standard
> > > > stuff like comment, gamma, resolution as we do in GIMP for parasites.
> > > > I'll have a look at the gdk-pixbuf-save() implementation...
> > > 
> > > i'd agree that just supporting comments feels cleaner.
> > > in general, one can't set different types of parasites on images,
> > > so i find an API indicating so misleading.
> > 
> > Resolution? Modification time? (png supports both) Image formats can
> 
> sure, but what supports xpm?

What does xpm support? Certainly not comments... this is why
a flexible API is better than hardcoding something.

Regards,
                                        Owen