Re: CFD: eXIf 2017-05-31

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Pavel Zlatovratskii <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I don't want to put that in the proposal, but I'll do this:

1) Add the RFC2119 reference to the next edition of the PNG extensions
document (I do not think that would require a vote)

2) Mention RFC2119 in the CALL FOR VOTE for eXIf.

>>
>> 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.

Editors that don't want to guess can discard the eXIf chunk
deliberately, even though it's "safe-to-copy"

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