AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2001.10.03 19:05 "OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Scott Marovich
2001.10.04 22:42 "Re: OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Tim Bell
2001.10.05 02:21 "Re: OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Joris Van Damme
2001.10.05 03:16 "Re: OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Niles Ritter
2001.10.05 13:00 "Re: OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Leonard Rosenthol
2001.10.05 17:00 "Re: OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Tore Bostrup
2001.12.02 16:28 "Re: OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Jon Saxton
[...]

2001.10.05 02:21 "Re: OJPEG & Wang Images (long)", by Joris Van Damme

However, I still believe that the proper solution to this problem is to have HP supply us with updated firmware for the 9100C which doesn't create OJPEG tiffs.

Here's wishing you every luck on that cruisade.

Honestly, I don't think they care. The one thing companies like this care about, is the paper plan of some manager that says 'support for jpeg in tiff'. They've been able to put a 'v' mark on that piece of paper. Job well done. If anyone start nagging, they've got the spec to wave about (though they usually do not care enough to do even that - unless you go nagging for a month first).

I still think the only way to solve this and some other problems is for this list to come up with tiff 7.0. Nobody needs to fear adobe in this matter; some adobe manager included 'no more tiff' in his paper plan, long time ago. They simply couldn't care less.

This are just some of the things that would make tiff 7.0 worthwhile:

I say forget about HP and adobe and WANG and M$. Their paper plans do not include noticing us. Is there any reason for us to notice them? Make TIFF worthwhile again, instead. A TIFF 7.0 that truely is the next logical step in the tiff story, is an incredebly interesting and usefull format. I'm willing to bet a lot on the fact that some of their managers will notice, and include 'support for tiff 7.0' in their paper plans.

There is a need for a tiff-like open format that can handle a broad number of compression scemes, multi-page, has an open and free spec and is supported by a public library. There has always been that need and I can't see how that would change. However, needs evolve. TIFF does not. That is the problem here. Persistence of 6.0 mistakes is but one of the symptoms.

OK, I suppose I've got a little cruisade of my own going here. But I'm not expecting anything to actually happen, except that maybe some people will raise an eyebrow for a second or two. (In tiff terms, that's about the equivalent of a tropical storm.)

Good luck though, seriously,

Joris