2004.10.03 00:39 "Re: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Chris Cox
At 11:28 AM +0100 10/2/04, Andy Cave wrote: >Companies/products/people just don't do that. They put a version >number inside the file that distinguishes it. And that surely is >what we are doing (or should be doing) for BigTIFF, even if it's >indirectly so. It's still TIFF.
No, they DO (have done, will keep doing) that.
When the change is big enough, you sometimes have to give it a new name.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Cox" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:53 AM
>Subject: Re: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue
>>At 6:10 AM +0200 10/2/04, Joris wrote:
>>> > But end users are only consistent in one way: they just want it to work.
>>>So this then implies that you have to go and change the file
>>>extension for every
>>>next version of the format that is not backwards compatible?
>>No, just major changes.