Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@remotesensing.org>
Received: from inmx012.isp.belgacom.be (inmx012.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.3.90])
        by mailst034.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-MAILSTORE-2.14) with ESMTP id i8HGhrMr023988
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:43:53 +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 inmx012.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id i8HGhiEn006057
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:43:46 +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 54D1E2F6B85; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:43:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Delivered-To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Received: from scooby.simplesystems.org (scooby.simplesystems.org
	[65.66.246.67])
	by xserve.flids.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8309B2F6B62
	for <tiff@remotesensing.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:43:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from blade.simplesystems.org (blade.simplesystems.org [65.66.246.74])
	by scooby.simplesystems.org (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id
	i8HGhS9p023260; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:43:28 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:43:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us>
X-X-Sender: bfriesen@blade.simplesystems.org
To: "Loygorri, Fernando" <FLoygorr@inovant.com>
Subject: RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue
In-Reply-To: <4BCF88971C5D964094550DF1B35532A81F2DE5@sw720ex016.visa.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.60.0409171118550.15634@blade.simplesystems.org>
References: <4BCF88971C5D964094550DF1B35532A81F2DE5@sw720ex016.visa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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: 200df124fc6ec79822c051c07b8a123f

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, 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.

There is also the option to use 64-bit unsigned types, but some 
implementations may be severely limited by only supporting 63-bits 
(gasp!). Hopefully I will still be alive when that last bit becomes a 
serious issue. :-)

I suggest that we stick with the 64-bit unsigned types with the 
recognition that many systems/implementations have limited 
capabilities.  Signed vs unsigned is a minor issue as compared to 
system limitations.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
Tiff@remotesensing.org
http://xserve.flids.com/mailman/listinfo/tiff
