Re: CALL for DISCUSSION: eXIf 20170115
Glenn Randers-Pehrson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.graphics.png.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CA+PdXcsGbLTktdP5nbF+Bf5P8sZJywurc7n4P0BVRVMLXJuLpw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Willem van Schaik <[email protected]> wrote: > > The reason that Glenn decided to stop pushing compressed was after I did > some research on 1000+ random PNG images. Roughly 25-30% contained a > tEXt chunk, around 10% had iTXt chunks and literally zero contained a > zTXt chunk. > A problem with that research is that PNG isn't just for the web. Most web images have been "stripped" of text and iCCP profiles. > So if we add both compressed and uncompressed into the spec, in all > likelihood nobody will ever use it. But on the other hand, every decoder > of PNG with EXIF will have to (!!) implement both options. > I don't see that as a big problem, as long as we admit the use of uncompressed-exif *writing*. > > I implemented my pngexif software (it inserts and extracts EXIF data > into/from PNG files) without the need for any libraries. That's I think > a big bonus. KISS :-) The voting will take care of that. You'll vote for uncompressed only, Cosmin will vote for compressed only, and I'll vote for both. Maybe they'll both fail, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. 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