Re: DRAFT: eXIF 2017-05-28

On 30 May 2017 at 07:03, Glenn Randers-Pehrson wrote:
> Just to be clear, I too greatly prefer eXIf (safe-to-copy) over
> eXIF (unsafe-to-copy) because it does a better job of preserving
> valuable historical information.  Approval of eXIf wouldn't
> require applications such as pngcrush/optipng to do anything
> new, while eXIF would require them to issue a new version
> to handle eXIF as if it were safe-to-copy when it's not
> making changes that would render that information
> incorrect.

Ok, Glenn, thank you very much for it, but if that's the case, let us
just resurrect eXIf. I don't know what else needs to be added to the
2017-03-12, because everything that needs to be explained is already
explained, correctly, and fully.

If you consider that to be still (possibly) insufficient to the past
"no" voters from whom we haven't heard yet since the past vote, I will
add a more extensive explanation, in form of an article, with test
images. We can link to it from the CFD/CFV, say, as an "additional
information" link. I made past claims about various things, but I will
add actual data to my PNG tech site. (Not now: I'm heading to work,
but I'll get back to it, later this evening or tomorrow evening.)

> If you like, you may consider the eXIF proposal to be a
> strawman designed to resurrect the discussion of eXIf,
> which is still an active proposal despite discussion
> having lapsed.

I am thrilled to hear that you consider eXIf a still-active proposal,
and I am hoping that, in the not too distant future, we will advance
it to the formal CFD+CFV stages.

TTYL
Cosmin

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