So I think we’d all agree that basename.extension.metadataextension is technically a better solution but basename.metadataextension seems to be the “industry standard”.
Now, in my opinion, it is not important why basename.metadataextension was chosen in the past, it’s not that great but what’s done is done and we have to live with it.
Now what is important is what that industry standard brings to the table? Why would we choose to go with the a little bit less flexible implementation. What would we have to give up and what would we gain?
If the gains are greater than the losses then I think we should go for it, if not then we shouldn’t.
I’ve never thought or cared about XMP metadata, it’s just not that well communicated in the community as a very useful thing. I think it’s time I and everyone like me takes another look at that and try to see some potential there.
Now @damonlynch mentioned that by adhering to the industry standard it would gain us the interoperability with other software and with online services.
I won’t pretend to know how that works on Goggle Photos, Flickr or other places and software. But I will say that he brings up a very fair point! Because that’s a big enough reason for many users to choose to make a trade off and go with the “industry standard” way of doing things.
If all of them are using basename.metadataextension then we might be loosing more than we are getting by diverging from the “industry standard”.
I would also like to hear @anon41087856 and @wpferguson opinions on this. They are developing a WordPress plugin that would publish photos from daktable afaik. I’m guessing they’d want to take a look at and evaluate potentially utilizing the xmp files too! In that endeavor I’d probably want to go with the “industry standard” if I ever wanted it to go beyond Darktable. But that’s why I’m mentioning them here to voice their thoughts.
One day maybe we’d like to have a Nextcloud photo extension that also makes use of the XMP metadata. We’d like that to adhere to a wide standard too I guess.
Anyway, I’ve learned two things today. I should care about properly naming my files as it just makes sense, it is nice to have and it’s very easy thanks to RPD.
And I should care about the xmp metadata and should look into how I can use it to my advantage.
My own opinion is that Darktable should definitely support the “industry standard” because the potential pain points pale in comparison to the gains and some users might be willing to make that trade off. It’s not the best possible thing, the best would be for IPTC to change their standard but it is what it is and we have to get some and give some.
There might be an option in the settings to change from let’s say Darktable standard to IPTC standard when creating xmp files. That way everyone would be happy.
I’d like to extend this discussion a bit. I’d like to know in what way and for which purposes are people using the xmp metadata? How do online services make use of those exactly? I only ever thought about those files as just history, but I’d like to know more.
I’d also like to ask people what they think of this thing?
https://github.com/darktable-org/darktable/pull/2819
Obviously design is just horrible but personally I’d like to see a powerful metadata editor in it’s own dedicated view space in Darktable. But it must have a much better design and UI than it’s propose in this MR.
It would be a cool way to enrich our images and maybe start thinking about metadata too, not just the photo itself.