AWARE [SYSTEMS] Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer
AWare Systems, Imaging expertise for the Delphi developer, Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
October 2000

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2000.10.05 00:20 "Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Tim Bell
2000.10.05 03:39 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Niles Ritter
2000.10.05 19:43 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Rex Jolliff
2000.10.06 02:20 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Tom Lane
2000.10.06 04:44 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Raj Kumar S
2000.10.06 09:36 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Joris Van Damme
2000.10.06 13:50 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Frank Warmerdam
2000.10.06 13:31 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 14:21 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Martin Bailey
2000.10.06 14:44 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 15:04 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Martin Bailey
2000.10.06 15:07 "PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Leonard Rosenthol
2000.10.06 16:13 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 16:32 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Leonard Rosenthol
2000.10.06 16:35 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 20:10 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Bo Yang
2000.10.06 20:41 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Ed Grissom
2000.10.06 21:35 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Alex Cherepanov
2000.10.08 00:24 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Leonard Rosenthol
2000.10.06 21:02 "Re: PDF is NOT proprietary!", by Larry Jones
2000.10.06 17:56 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Joris Van Damme
2000.10.06 10:36 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Martin Bailey
2000.10.07 06:03 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Joris Van Damme

2000.10.06 02:20 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Tom Lane

Rex_Jolliff@notes.ymp.gov writes:
> If the worst thing that I had to deal with were compliant V6JETs,
> that would be cause for celebration.  Of course, there are vendors
> which do not even produce files consistant with the V6 spec.

That would be all of them.

I have hardly ever seen a type-6 TIFF that wasn't demonstrably non-
conformant with one or another of the unambiguous portions of the TIFF
6.0 JPEG spec.  Add to that the fact that other parts of the spec are
sufficiently ambiguous that it's hard to say what *is* correct, and it
becomes obvious that type-6 is not a standard at all.  For each vendor
who claims to emit it, a would-be decoder must figure out what their
particular variant is and write special code to support that variant.

This is not a standard, it's just a Tower of Babel.

As for the fact that TTN2 is not official, the blame for that lies
directly with Adobe management.  Steve Carlson was ready to put out
TTN2 as part of a TIFF spec revision when Adobe bought out Aldus
and immediately defunded TIFF spec maintenance.  Adobe have been
suppressing a ready-to-go TIFF 7.0 spec for quite a few years now.
I have heard well-informed opinions that Adobe see TIFF as a
competitive threat to their proprietary PDF spec, and are therefore
doing their level best to kill TIFF by not-so-benign neglect.

Bottom line: the alleged maintainers of TIFF have zero credibility
with those who've been paying attention, and if there weren't a small
problem of copyright and trademark there would have been a
public-domain TIFF spec update by now.  In the meantime, the argument
that TTN2 has no official standing cuts no ice except with pointy-
hair types.

			regards, tom lane
			organizer, Independent JPEG Group