LibTiff Mailing List
TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
July 2007
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
Thread
2007.07.02 09:08 "Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Andy Cave
Hi Bob,
I think people do care, or should. Opening files is not a fast process
(especially across a network), so opening more files than necessary is just
a waste of time. If you have an application that points at an arbitary
folder/directory, then depending on platform, opening all files found in
that directory could also cause problems if other apps try and open the same
files (exclusively).
In our product FirstPROOF, we used to insist on TIFF files being named as
either ".TIF" or ".TIFF". Recently we had to change that and allow the user
to configure this (defaulting to ".TIFF"). That's 'cause some products were
using ".RIP" instead of ".TIF[F]" - the simple reason being to stop
Windows/MacOS from producing a downsample of the file and taking _ages_ to
do so ('cause we deal with very large files - 40" x 40" at 3048 dpi or
larger). So applications need to be flexible in allowing different
extensions, but should have a defined extension.
For big tiff, I think it should be ".TIF" or ".TIFF", for the reasons I
posted before - try explaining what ".BTF" or ".TF2" means to non-technical
customers / users (and there are a LOT of them around).
In fact if I didn't mention it then, I think there are more arguments to
stick with ".TIF[F]" - just take all the other apps which have 'grown' over
time, going from version 1 to version 2 to version 3 to etc... none (or very
few) of these have changed their extensions. Word docs are still ".DOC",
Excel docs are still ".XLS", Photoshop docs are still ".PSD", PDF docs are
still ".PDF", Corel docs are still ".CDR", etc... None of these changed, so
why on earth would anyone consider doing the same for TIFF.
Whatever I or you or anyone else thinks or does though, people are going to
use other extensions. Someone is bound to prefer or use "BTF" or "TF2" (just
like Stephen did). In Stephens case, he clearly used "TF2" to distinguish
the files for testing/development purposes, with no consideration for the
'users' or 'customers'. Whether we like it or not, this is going to happen
and then the use of this is going to stick.
For our products, I plan on defaulting to ".TIFF", but allow our customers
to change this should they so want to. The only way I'd change this, would
be if the 'rest of the world' used something else, in which case we'd be
forced to follow suit. That would happen for example if some 'industry
giant' such as Adobe chose a certain extension.
Regards,
Andy.
Andy Cave,
Chief Executive Officer,
Hamillroad Software Limited.
www.firstproof.com
www.hamillroad.com
Hamillroad Software Limited is a company registered in England, No. 4375636.
Whitehall House, Oakington, Cambridge, CB24 3BB. VAT Reg No. GB 758230719.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Friesenhahn" <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us>
To: "Tiff List" <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue
> Way back in 2004 there was a long discussion of what extension to use for
> BigTIFF (see http://www.asmail.be/msg0055326857.html). Re-reading this
> discussion, I see a lot of good points, but don't see any obvious
> conclusion. It seems like a case of allowing the market/users to decide.
>
> I have started to update my application to support BigTIFF. I am happy to
> support the extension ".tiff" but of course there are other proposals.
> Initially, it does not seem like anyone will be casually writing BigTIFF
> files since Classic TIFF (TM) provides assured coverage to at least 2GB
> file sizes (and often 4GB) and users of large files know who they are and
> will explicitly decide to use BigTIFF. This means that it will take time
> before BigTIFF files are encountered in "the wild".
>
> Given the state of the computing universe, does anyone care about three
> character file extensions any more? Are there systems still in use
> (reasonably expected to encounter a BigTIFF file) which make their format
> decisions based on a three character extension, or is this behavior now
> effectively extinct?
>
> Bob
> ======================================
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
> http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/