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
April 2006

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

2006.04.19 10:45 "TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Rui Castro
2006.04.19 11:40 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 19:26 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Glenn Widener
2006.04.19 21:03 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 21:22 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.04.19 21:38 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 21:52 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.04.19 22:47 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 23:05 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Bob Friesenhahn
2006.04.19 23:27 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Leonard Rosenthol
2006.04.19 23:34 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Graeme Gill
2006.04.19 23:41 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Graeme Gill
2006.05.01 01:34 "JBIG2 patent situation", by Glenn Widener
2006.05.01 16:07 "Re: JBIG2 patent situation", by Dwight Kelly
2006.04.20 07:30 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Brad Hards
2006.04.19 11:49 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Rocky Pulley
2006.04.19 12:40 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by Gerben Vos
2006.04.20 20:27 "Re: TIFF + Group4 will last 10 years?", by <melser.anton@gmail.com>

2006.04.19 21:52 "Re: PDF/A vs. TIFF", by Bob Friesenhahn

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> > 
> > JBIG2 and JPEG2000 use patented algorithms so they are not as useful as 
> > they should be.
>
> Patents, provided they are covered by "reasonable licensing" aren't 
> considered a limiting factor in ISO standards.  So that's a non-issue.

You didn't finish your sentance.  I think you meant "So that's a 
non-issue for ISO standards".  Patents are a huge issue to the world 
at large even if the licensing fee is "reasonable".  The intention of 
patents is to intentionally restrict implementation and they have 
proven to be quite effective at that.

> "bit rot" is NOT the issue for long term storage (at least on the 
> file format side of the fence)....it is about the "ability to preserve 
> information its presentation".   Because TIFF (as we know it today) has been 
> "hacked up" by many people for many (incompatible) purposes - not just with 
> new and undocumented tags BUT also with variant implementations of existing 
> tags (eg. OJPEG), it doesn't pass the test for reliability.  Neither does 
> "standard" PDF - which is why a SUBSET of the standard, now called PDF/A (or 
> ISO 19005-1) exists - to remove any potential problems and "lock down" areas 
> of ambiguitity.
>
> Doing the same for TIFF would be a worthwhile goal...and one that 
> would be necessary for TIFF to achieve a level of respect in the archival 
> community.

So, if the original presentation is not bit-mapped raster and has 
metadata that TIFF does not support, then PDF/A will do better.  The 
"first do no harm" principle applies.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/