Re: DRAFT: eXIf 2017-03-02
Pavel Zlatovratskii <[email protected]> Fri, 3 Mar 2017 17:34:48 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.graphics.png.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | TB.Budget |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
That's an idea I can't understand. If it's possible to invent more and achieve better results why we should stop? If we encounter any troubles with keeping EXIF as-is why it should be solved only with conditions and not with new chunks? I mean "there is no expectation that any thumbnails present in the Exif profile have (or have not) been updated" condition - separate chunk could be made unsafe to copy so preview will be or up-to-date or absent. * I'm not insist that preview chunk is only and best solution. I want to find out why we're not trying invent more(up to trying "not to invent more"). PNG already have sTER, sCAL, iTXt, it's already better than JPEG in some kind of metadata. Why PNG should not increase it's advantage? 03.03.2017 14:39, Glenn Randers-Pehrson пишет: > Sure, but why? We're simply trying to preserve Exif data, not invent > more. > > 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 [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