Re: EXIF support in PNG

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Willem van Schaik <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Glenn wrote:
>
>  > I don't think so.
>
>
> wow Glenn, you're stubborn ... :-)
>
> the one byte header I don't really like but I can easily live with
>
> I thought we were still talking about a header with some form of
> readable description, I didn't like that idea but just an extra byte is
> no issue
>

No I gave up on that.


>
> regarding compression or not (you know my preference :) here will be my
> voting strategy:
>
> 1) when we're voting including compression my vote on the proposal will
> be NO
>

The one byte is the compresion method, and only 0 is allowed, meaning
deflate/zlib-encoded.  See discussion; it doesn't have to be compressed.



>
> but
>
> 2a) the proposal gets accepted
>
> 2b) the proposal gets rejected because too many others don't like
> compression
>
> 2c) the proposal gets rejected but the majority agrees on compression,
> in which case I will switch camps and not object against compression
> anymore
>
> Alternatively, maybe easier, we vote on two proposals that are nearly
> identical, one with and the other without compression. And we simply
> agree with each other that only one can survive, depending on the number
> of votes.
>

We tried something like that before, and it just got to be a mess
with no alternative receiving enough -- or even *any* votes -- the
"with compression" camp only votes for the version with compression
and the "without" only votes for the other.

But we can try it.

1:
eXIf <raw exif profile>

2:
eXIF <compression method> <RFC1950 deflate-encoded exif profile>

I would vote for 2 and against 1.

Glenn

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

_______________________________________________
png-mng-misc mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/png-mng-misc