-
2004.04.15 01:57 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.04.15 02:17 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Lynn Quam
- 2004.04.15 04:41 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.15 06:05 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.15 13:33 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.04.15 02:17 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Lynn Quam
- 2004.04.15 12:23 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Dan Smith
-
2004.04.20 08:29 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.20 14:20 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.20 20:44 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.21 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.04.21 17:54 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 07:38 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.04.22 18:21 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.22 18:34 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Thomas J. Kacvinsky
-
2004.04.22 20:45 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Andrey Kiselev
-
2004.04.22 21:06 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 21:35 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 21:49 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.04.22 21:59 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.22 22:23 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.04.22 22:31 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 22:34 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.22 23:03 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.23 12:45 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by John Aldridge
-
2004.04.23 13:12 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.04.26 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.23 13:16 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Phillip Crews
- 2004.04.23 20:28 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Andrey Kiselev
-
2004.04.23 13:12 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 22:34 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
- 2004.04.23 15:54 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Leonard Rosenthol
-
2004.04.22 21:59 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 21:49 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.04.22 21:35 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.04.22 21:06 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 18:21 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.22 07:38 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.04.21 17:54 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Chris Cox
-
2004.04.21 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Rob van den Tillaart
- 2004.04.23 20:37 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.04.22 19:52 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Phillip Crews
Of course, that brings up the question: do we still need to support two byte orders?
In my experiments, reading from the disk always swamped the time needed to swap byte order - so there is no noticable impact from using a fixed byte order and forcing conversion on one platform the other.
I suggest that network byte order (big endian) be used. Especially if any Big TIFF variant will go before the IETF for RFC approval.
If the choice is made to go with one byte order, then I second the choice of big endian since it allows portable sample-parsing code to be more efficient and easier to implement.
Probably someone will complain about that because their application only uses one sample size and they only use Intel x86.
Or maybe VAX!
I work mostly on x86/Windows, and I say let 'em whine. It should be one byte order; less confusion in the future, and network byte order is the appropriate choice.
PS. Sorry for the direct e-mail, Bob. I forget again to change the recipient to the list.