2000.10.05 00:20 "Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Tim Bell

2000.10.05 19:43 "Re: Old-style JPEG and HP 9100C Digital Sender", by Rex Jolliff

At any cost, you have got to convince the Vendor to stop producing old JPEG-TIFF, and to burn all copies of their source code and sew the ground with salt. It cannot be implemented, should not be implemented, and is EVIL.

While this is a good goal, it should be pointed out that tech note #2 is NOT a standard recognized by the holder of the current TIFF spec. The vendor is faced with producing a file which can be read by as many as possible, and the standard which everyone is following is NOT tech note #2, but TIFF version 6.

There is simply no excuse for not knowing about this note, it has been around since the mid 90's.

Again, those of us in the real world have to deal with images produced to the TIFF version 6 spec. Yelling obscenities at our vendors about generating V6 jpeg encoded tiffs will not make them our friends. It is worth a try to convince them that the current V6JET spec is flawed and that they should provide an option to produce JETs which conform to the tech note, but this will not always produce the results you desire. In such cases you will be forced to deal with V6JETs.

There is simply no excuse for promulgating evil files around. It may be compliant with the TIFF-6.0 spec, but that portion of the spec is itself bad. Very bad.

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. To such vendors I would reccomend sending a description of where they fail to be consistant with the standard and a suggection that they produce TN2JETs at least as an option.