Image hashes

[mizaki]

I don't see a place for them in the current spec?

Off the top of my head:

<hashes>
  <ahash>[hex?]</hash>
  <phash>[hex?]</phash>
</hashes>

Or maybe:

<hash type="ahash">[hex?]</hash>

[bpepple]

What would that be used for? I'm not quite sure it would be helpful, since the xml is already matched to a source(s).

[mizaki]

As I mentioned, updating and other sources:

1. Tag with metrontagger/other
   2.1. Update at a later date for added/updated information
   2.2. Use another information source

If you want to argue having the ID reduces the usefulness, true. I'm not "you have to have this!" :)

[bpepple]

If you want to argue having the ID reduces the usefulness, true. I'm not "you have to have this!" :)

My thinking is having the source id is much more useful than having a hash, since it would be a definitive match. I'm not inclined to add the hash to the schema, since I don't see it being used much (if at all). What do you think, @majora2007?

[majora2007]

I'm in agreement. I'm not against revisiting later, but I still can't see how the cover hash will be used. I believe both Komga and Kavita will take the first file (Kavita searches for cover in the filename first). Even if a hash was available for the cover, it wouldn't really change much from consumption side.

I could see it being helpful if comparing if a better cover exists from another application, but it doesn't belong in a metadata standard imo.

[bpepple]

Ok, so for now, we won't add the cover hash to the schema, but we are willing to revisit it if there is a compelling argument to add it in the future.