Re: DRAFT: eXIf 2017-03-03
Glenn Randers-Pehrson <[email protected]> Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:22:00 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.graphics.png.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CA+PdXcsKHeacy6pNSgSXJwR8U2a_VP5K=_cCD1MEvVj3cDa_zg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Phil Harvey <phil-CIeU6mJ2MbMd166Dz3SrqbDks+cytr/[email protected]> wrote: > Technically, you can't have IFD1 without IFD0. IFD0 may have zero entries, but it must exist if IFD1 exists. Maybe. What happens if there's no IFD0 and the TIFF header points to IFD1? > I think you're getting into too much detail in repeating the EXIF specification. It's one or two sentences out of 180 pages. And because of this discussion you can see that the Exif spec isn't 100% clear on this point. BTW this doesn't really add complexity for decoders; whether we mention it or not, they have to handle such files because fuzzers are going to throw them at us whether we approve them or not. Glenn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot