Re: DRAFT: eXIf 2017-03-02

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:50 AM, John Bowler
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I also don't see why I shouldn't just put the EXIF tags into IFD[0];
> the level of indirection is of no benefit in a single-image format.
> Maybe CIPA2016 intends to mandate that they appear there, but I can't
> be sure and, anyway, CIPA may change the spec.
>
> I also don't see any reason why IFD[0] must contain either EXIF or GPS
> offset tags; it seems perfectly possible for both to be empty.  Take a
> look at Tables 17 and 18.  I know it says that the EXIF offset is
> mandatory, but if you don't put "Copyright holder" into IFD[0] then
> all the other tags in Table 17 are part of TIFF, not EXIF.

What made sense to me was to allow multiple eXIf chunks, and
put the IFD0 stuff in one, GPS stuff in another, and thumbnail
in still another.  But no one liked that, so we have what we have.

Glenn

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