Exchanging tags between Photomechanic and Darktable

[rvietor]

@nosle

The iso standard was written by Adobe

Afaik, the ISO part only covers part 1: the data model, serialisation and core namespaces. It does not cover the other parts, among others the file naming conventions.

[paperdigits (Mica)]

@nosle

Storing edits in xmp is at best a secondary function of the standard and one who’s utility is very limited

What? The X in XMP is for “extensible.” So the original designers thought it important, or they wouldn’t have made it extensible.

@nosle

xmp is part of the whole xml metadata initiative such as dublin core and xhtml (back in the day).

XMP is the specification of an XML dialect for metadata. Dublin Core is a specific namespace for XMP. XHTML is not specifically metadata and doesn’t have much to do with this.

[nosle]

@paperdigits

What? The X in XMP is for “extensible.” So the original designers thought it important, or they wouldn’t have made it extensible.

That’s why I said secondary. Initially edits weren’t saved in xmp format. It was just a sort of hierarchical exif type thing following the xml trend. Naturally it’s very important for a metadata scheme to be extensible and as you know it’s the basis of those xml related initiatives I mentioned.

@paperdigits

XMP is the specification of an XML dialect for metadata. Dublin Core is a specific namespace for XMP. XHTML is not specifically metadata and doesn’t have much to do with this.

xhtml was an attempt to bring html closer to xml so that it could benefit from being a markup language rather than a hacked together presentation language. Xmp comes from that same era when everything was made xml to structure data and information. I’m pretty sure you know this.

There’s no getting around that xmp was designed as a next gen exif that would enable images to carry richer and more structured metadata for search, archiving etc. Of course it was extensible and of course Adobe who wrote it used it for storing edits before dt. They didn’t break xmp for that fuction so it’s all good.

[paperdigits (Mica)]

@nosle

I’m pretty sure you know this

I do, you’re the one who incorectly conflated XHTML and metadata.

@nosle

That’s why I said secondary

But not secondary. A huge part of the original design. Since its extensible, it can incorporate past and future metadata in an XML form to provide compatibility.

@nosle

xhtml was an attempt to bring html closer to xml so that it could benefit from being a markup language rather than a hacked together presentation language.

Huh? XHTML was brought about (not an attempt) to provide a stricter subset of HTML that could be validated against a DTD. HTML is a markup language and so is XHTML. Its a mix of structural and presentational.

[nosle]

@paperdigits

But not secondary. A huge part of the original design. Since its extensible, it can incorporate past and future metadata in an XML form to provide compatibility.

The extensibility isn’t secondary but the use case as raw editor “config”. Naturally if done right it’s fine to do so. I can be considered metatada and xmp is extensible to allow new and unforseen uses.

@paperdigits

XHTML was brought about (not an attempt) to provide a stricter subset of HTML that could be validated against a DTD.

You’re just saying what I just said but formulated for people who know those words. I’m know them but don’t think it adds meaning for this context. You’re marking words and going for irrelevant specificity to sidetrack the discussion. Simply put:

Xmp was designed for digital asset management.

[paperdigits (Mica)]

@nosle

You’re just saying what I just said

Yeah, no. You should choose your words more carefully.

You continually saying something to the effect of “I’m right” or “that’s what I said” when you’re not right and that isn’t what you said is disingenuous.

Other than that, I think we are done here.