Re: CFD: eXIf 2017-05-31

07.06.2017 13:06, Glenn Randers-Pehrson пишет:
> I"d rather not issue a new CFD for that.  Please just take this message
> as basis for understanding the words "must", etc.
Ok, but if there will be another issue for new CFD - please add 
reference to RFC2119.
> It is intended to set the value (usefulness) of the EXIF data, without
> esablishing priority among chunks and EXIF.
So we go back to start again. Just change "actual" to "better":
"There is no guarantee for EXIF, but someone may prefer EXIF over PNG 
chunks, so try to guess what data is better". Guess is not simple.

That won't prevent guessing. We have "historical" resolution in eXIf, we 
have some resolution in pHYs(safe-to-copy chunk may be left untouched 
after rescale by software unaware of pHYs). Which one I should use if 
they are not the same?
Undefined behaviour increase complexity as editor must use both ways to 
ensure proper resolution will be used. And I see no way how such UB 
could ever decrease complexity.

For text chunks this will be ever more complex as may result in 
detection if eXIf data should be added or replaced.

-- 
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