Re: CFD: eXIf 2017-05-31

I would prefer to leave the statment in the chunk spec.

First off, it begins with "It is recommended..."

Anyone will know that the camera data and such are valid.

Only a user who has had custody of the image from
the time it came from the camera will have "independent knowledge"
that such things as Orientation and image dimensions are valid.
If I take a camera JPG and process it myself, keeping Orientation
up to date, then I have "independent knowledge" that it's OK.
Otherwise, I don't.

Glenn

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Pavel Zlatovratskii <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We already tried a proposal without that sentence and it was voted
>> down.  The sentence is there to help make the proposal acceptable.
>>
> Well, I think main problem is not allow using of 'some data of EXIF in some
> cases', but instead more clear describe which data may be used for most
> cases and which should be treated with care.
>
> And as I can find out from archives most 'NO' votes (incl. my own) was
> caused by absence of "the data should be considered to be of historical
> value only.", not by absence exceptions when this data could be treated as
> non-historical.
> After all, as Cosmin mention before
>>EXIF is about photography, and the photography-related fields are the ones
>> that are important: camera, lens, exposure, flash, etc.
>
> Most of these fields are still correct and useful even as historical: no
> image processing could ever change fact that it was shot with mentioned lens
> and camera.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot