2004.10.01 07:22 "[Tiff] BigTIFF extension issue", by Joris Van Damme

2004.10.05 13:27 "Re: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Joris Van Damme


Did no-one have any comments re my mail about defining the bigtiff spec in a backwards compatible way? If we did this, then the question on extension becomes mute.

Threads about BigTIFF seem to always spin way into the void. One seems eager to discuss the complete concept, and everything about it, in every single thread about every single detail. That is one of the reasons why things are moving along only very slowly.

I can see your idea has been offered in relation to the extension, this comment does not apply to your mail. But if I were to answer it, the comment would surely apply to my answer, and next to all answers to all answers... Before you know it, people interested in really moving BigTIFF along, will start ignoring BigTIFF threads, and that cannot be good.

I will thus try and answer in a private mail, instead. Essentially, it's going to be about relocatability of TIFF data blocks, and about how it's ackward if one tag in one directory applies to the file and such. In short: I'm sorry to say I don't think it's a good idea. Perhaps I already said to much and be provocing answers. If anyone feels the need, we ought to start another thread. This one is about a) going with the previously suggested extension that was already fixed in BigTIFF design, or b) changing that extension back to '.tif', nothing more, since that subject proves to already generate more traffic then many care to read.

Joris Van Damme
Download your free TIFF tag viewer for windows here: