Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@remotesensing.org>
Received: from inmx011.isp.belgacom.be (inmx011.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.3.50])
        by mailst034.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-MAILSTORE-2.14) with ESMTP id i8HG1Nxt030427
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:01:23 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@remotesensing.org>)
Received: from xserve.flids.com (adsl-065-083-169-202.sip.mco.bellsouth.net [65.83.169.202])
        by inmx011.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id i8HG1Axo015173
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:01:11 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@remotesensing.org>)
Received: from adsl-065-083-169-202.sip.mco.bellsouth.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by xserve.flids.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B72DB2F67EE; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:00:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Delivered-To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Received: from sabre.velocet.net (sabre.velocet.net [216.138.209.205])
	by xserve.flids.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C152F67C6
	for <tiff@remotesensing.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:00:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pobox.com (H156.C195.tor.velocet.net [216.138.195.156])
	by sabre.velocet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id DDB85139B6C; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:00:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <414B0A24.9090901@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:00:36 -0400
From: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Loygorri, Fernando" <FLoygorr@inovant.com>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue
References: <4BCF88971C5D964094550DF1B35532A81F2DE5@sw720ex016.visa.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BCF88971C5D964094550DF1B35532A81F2DE5@sw720ex016.visa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: TIFF Mailing List <tiff@remotesensing.org>
X-BeenThere: tiff@remotesensing.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion  <tiff.remotesensing.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xserve.flids.com/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xserve.flids.com/pipermail/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@remotesensing.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://xserve.flids.com/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@remotesensing.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@remotesensing.org
X-UIDL: 2f7f0b7f897485ff74aa0fa15278d39f

Loygorri, Fernando wrote:
> Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that negative 64-bit values should
> have any meaning. They should be outlawed by the spec. I'm proposing
> that the spec outlaw values with the most-significant bit set, and
> this only to accommodate languages like Java that have a 64-bit signed
> type but no 64-bit unsigned type.

FGL,

As a practical matter Java or other unsigned-deficient languages can just
use a signed 64bit integer type.  It isn't like there will in practice
be any objects with an offset of more than 2^63 anyways.  In fact, libtiff
used a signed int for toff_t till a few years ago too.

I'm sure the folks said the same thing about 32bit offsets once, but I am
convinced no one will be able to track me down and make me sorry for this
suggestion when it starts to matter.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
Tiff@remotesensing.org
http://xserve.flids.com/mailman/listinfo/tiff
