- 2004.05.27 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 09:25 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.05.27 10:43 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 12:49 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 13:05 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.05.27 18:31 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Chris Cox
- 2004.06.01 11:50 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 16:37 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.06.04 13:31 "RE: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Ed Grissom
- 2004.06.09 20:33 "[Tiff] Re: large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
2004.06.10 21:11 "Re: [Tiff] Re: large TIFF - two alternatives", by Phillip Crews
Breaking the file-extention is imho not alternative 1. The file extention should still be .tif or .tiff
Unless you can get every application to adopt the new library, and every user to upgrade their applications... using the same extension will just create a lot of confusion ("it's a TIFF file, why can't Photoshop 3 read it?").
Changing the extension (and Macintosh file type) will remove that confusion -- communicating that it is a new file type and won't be compatible with older readers. This will also give software vendors an obvious way to indicate compatibility with the modified format.
I agree absolutely. A new format incompatible with existing readers should have a new file type.
- Phillip