From: Matt Gruenke (mgruenke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 00:42:49
Joel de Guzman wrote:
>Matt Gruenke wrote:
>
>
>>Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>
>>
>>I think inventing new terminology is better than overloading or
>>hijacking existing terminology. Furthermore, I believe good names
>>accurately describe the concepts to which they refer. Finally, as a
>>user, seeing an unfamiliar term will either prompt me to investigate it
>>- or at least to treat it as an unknown, and therefore with appropriate
>>caution.
>>
>>
>
>I see no overloading or hijacking.
>
>
The classical definition of color space is not concerned with data
layout (i.e. channel ordering). In many cases, the channel names in
common use are heavily overloaded, and are therefore quite inadequate
for specifying a color space.
Data format and pixel semantics are orthogonal concepts. A primary goal
of GIL is to separate these concepts. IMO, the names used in GIL should
reflect this.
>That's not my point. Take a look at all the existing libraries
>that use concepts. Pick one; Vigra seems popular.
>
As far as I can tell, GIL does not seek to be only as good as other
libraries, in what it does - nor should it. In fact, its main objective
seems to be to take a principled approach to the problem of image
representation, access, and conversion and, in so doing, to provide a
better foundation for imaging libraries and applications than existing
solutions. Otherwise, why bother?
Years of programming experience have taught me that semantics matter.
Clouded semantics limit extensibility and cause confusion, bugs, and
redundancy. (Ambiguity should be deliberate, and carefully bounded.)
>"Color Space" *IS* known terminology. That's my point.
>
>
"known" and "accurate" are distinct criteria.
I think I've made my points. In the end, it's up to Lubomir and Hailin.
Matt