Re: DRAFT: eXIf-2017-02-13

Oh, sorry, was too focused on "will EXIF be enough" discussion....


 >The data segment of the eXIf chunk contains an Exif profile in the 
format specified in "4.7.2 Interoperability Structure of APP1 in 
Compressed Data" of [CIPA DC-008-2016] except that the JPEG APP1 marker, 
length, and the "Exif ID code" described in 4.7.2(C), i.e., "Exif", 
NULL, padding byte, are not included.

PNG chunk length described by 4 bytes unlike JPEG marker with 2-byte 
length. Is there any reason to keep 64k restriction?

With such number of exceptions may be better to refer 4.5.2 except image 
data?

 >Multiple eXIf chunks are not forbidden.
How does this should be interpreted?
As separate sets of metadata or as parts of big EXIF like IDAT?
First could result in conflicts; second could be broken with reordering.


> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Glenn Randers-Pehrson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DRAFT
>> eXIf 2017-02-13
>> http://www.simplesystems.org/png-group/proposals/eXIf/
>> png-proposed-eXIf-chunk-2017-02-13.html
>> Glenn Randers-Pehrson
>>
>> This version adds a security consideration about Exif tags that have
>> invalid offsets.  The "boilerplate" at the beginning is revised to
>> show the current (http) and archived (ftp) locations of the draft.
>>
>> 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

-- 
Have a nice DOS.

Pavel Zlatovratskii scondo-JGs/[email protected]; [email protected]


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