Re: [Libexif-devel] Re: libmnote and libexif merged

[Roberto C. <rob...@en...>]

Lutz M=FCller wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 21:04, Roberto Costa wrote:
> > Lutz M=FCller wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that is an acceptable behaviour the fact that a
> > libexif user that processes his/her images with the library may lose
> > information because of lack of knowledge about his/her camera maker
> > notes.
> > My idea is that libexif should always be conservative and do its best
> > not to corrupt any user exif info.
>=20
> Agreed. So, if we encounter MakerNotes other than Canon, Olympus and
> Pentax, we'd like to preserve data between IFDs at its original offsets=
=2E
> The easiest way (I guess) to accomplish that would be to preserve the
> original EXIF data, to append our new/modified EXIF data at the end and
> simply point in the EXIF header to our new IFD0...

Yes, I fully agree.
Perhaps it should be possible for a library client to request one of the
two behaviours explicitly, unless specified the exif data compaction
would be enabled for known maker notes and disabled for the others.

Have you in mind an interface to do it?
I guess it would be sufficient to add a new function to save exif data,
the signature would be identical to the existing except for an
additional parameter that specifies the desired behaviour.

Cheers,
Roberto