AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2004.10.01 16:41 "[Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Ian Ameline
2004.10.01 16:53 "Re: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Frank Warmerdam
2004.10.03 00:39 "Re: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Chris Cox
2004.10.02 04:10 "Re: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Joris
2004.10.04 08:34 "Re: [Tiff] Re: BigTIFF extension issue", by Andy Cave
[...]

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.

Chris

>Andy.
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Cox" <ccox@adobe.com>
>To: <tiff@remotesensing.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.
>>
>>Chris