Re: DRAFT: eXIf 2017-02-28

However format of *data* is not described in this paragraph. There is 
some reference to format of data in clause D and E(yet no point to exact 
paragraph).

Explicit is better than implicit. That's why I propose to write some 
clear reference to format of data instead of reference to JPEG-specific 
items. And(as side-effect) get rid of unuseful *assuming*.

I see no reason to mention JPEG. If there is some - please name it.

I don't want to say that current proposal is bad as it refers JPEG part 
of EXIF. I just want to say it could be better with more clear reference.

02.03.2017 19:53, John Bowler пишет:
> The section seems clear to me; the reference is to the format of the
> *data*, not the format of the *chunk* (PNG) or the *marker* (JPEG).
> Indeed, IRC, CIPA points out that JPEG (not CIPA/EXIF) limits the
> length to 64k.
>
> Since this is the only example, so far as I know, of EXIF embedded in
> a foreign file format the reference is useful.  I think we have to
> assume that the reader of the PNG spec will appreciate that references
> to JPEG specific items in that section have to be interpreted with
> respect to the corresponding features in 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

-- 
Have a nice DOS.

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