2004.04.22 22:31 "Re: [Tiff] Large TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
Yes, there is some desire to fix old problems with TIFF in addition to extending the file length.
OK, so there is, and I'm not saying there's not. What I am asking myself, and you, is, do you think it is preferable to
- draw upon 15 years of experience
- finally include 'new' style jpeg in the new spec
- finally properly document the deflate compression in the new spec
- make a proper list of practiced color spaces
- investigate size limits of compression schemes as they are today
- deciding upon new header/signature
- discussing human-friendly bloat ASCII tag names that are STILL code unfriendly, despite of the fact that nowadays hardware doesn't punish bloat stuff that severely anymore, by there very nature
- start so many things all over again that you're bound to repeat history and cummulate all the scruff all over again in a completely new file format.
In my opinion, if you prefer revolution over evolution, then here's one revolution that really does add something usefull: memory managment in the new TIFF file format. Since blocks are relocatable, but not managed, things are now readable and writable, but not (really) editable. A new file format > 4 gig would make memory managment provisions really worthwhile, due to its size and thus the enourmous cost of trans-read-writing whole files to simply change a few tags and add/delete a few pages. *That* is a worthwhile addition, ASCII tags are a nowadays very common waste, and re-inventing the wheel is wasting time and repeating history and cummulating same old new scruff all over again. Or at least, that's my opinion.
Joris Van Damme
Download your free TIFF tag viewer for windows here: