Comment by gavinray

Comment by gavinray a day ago

3 replies

Maybe I'm jaded, but I fail to see how a bespoke file format is a better solution than bundling a normal image and a JSON/XML document containing metadata that adheres to a defined specification.

It feels like creating a custom format with backwards PNG compatibility and using steganography to cram metadata inside is an inefficient and over-engineered alternative to a .tar.gz with "image.png" and "metadata.json"

kuberwastaken a day ago

That's fair and how it's traditionally done but the entire idea of this was to have everything you need on the image itself and reduce the complexity and extra files, no risk of losing the JSON, mismatching versions, or needing extra packaging steps.

I'm working on redundancy and error correction to make it better!

CharlesW a day ago

> …creating a custom format with backwards PNG compatibility and using steganography to cram metadata inside is an inefficient and over-engineered alternative to a .tar.gz with "image.png" and "metadata.json"

So, "perfect Show HN"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

xhkkffbf a day ago

Yes, separate metadata has great advantages, but it can get separated from the main file pretty easily. Many social media platforms and email sites will let you embed PNG files. But they won't let you embed an image with a separate metadata file that's always kept along with it.

When images get loose in the wild, this can be very helpful.