Re: CALL for DISCUSSION: eXIf 20170115

ok, I get it now

clean and lean ...

Willem



On 2017-01-21 00:11, John Bowler wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Willem van Schaik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> why updating the chunk proposal before any serious discussion has
>> happened ??
>
> I raised the point before Glenn wrote the formal proposal, no one
> expressed an opinion (beyond my original one, which was pretty much a
> non-opinion).
>
> So an opinion was expressed and that has to tip the balance.  No one
> else said anything one way or another.
>
> On balance I prefer it without the JPEG ID which was there only to
> resolve the issue with JPEG APP markers being, of themselves,
> unidentifiable.  It all seems logical to me; the JPEG ID becomes the
> PNG chunk ID, the marker length becomes the PNG chunk length, the
> data, the real payload, is as in JPEG.
>
> Precisely what goes on in TIFF, the only other supported EXIF format,
> is irrelevant because TIFF is the native format of EXIF; JPEG is a
> non-native format and so is PNG.
>
> John Bowler
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>

-- 
Willem van Schaik
[email protected]

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