Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing

["scott s." <75270 3703 earthlink net>]

On 7/14/2012 04:45, Chris Mohler wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Johannes <anonforum gmx org> wrote:
> > This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):
>
> ### CORRECTED
>
> There are a handful of people developing GIMP.  They are following this:
> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification
>
> Based on this:
> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign
>
> You can:
>
> A: Bitch
>
> B: Adapt
>
> C: Fork
>
> I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive.

Thanks for the refs.  It makes for better understanding.  In studying
the specs something I don't understand is why there is an apparent 
distinction being made between file open behavior and file save.  It
seems to me that opening vice import has many of the same issues/
useability requirements that should be considered. In particular, a
problem I encounter with workflow in GIMP is that GIMP doesn't really
handle (AFAIK) meta-data embedded with image raster data in file formats
(in my case, Tiff tags).  Treating import in a manner analogous to
export (ie, import and export may cause loss of data) seems reasonable
(if only to me of course).

scott s.
.