Received: from [207.176.88.85] by phillip.cerious.com (NTMail 3.03.0017/7.aaxh) with ESMTP id pcrews for <pcrews@cerious.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:05:32 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA27364;
	Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:01:33 -0500
Received: by gate7.olympiakos.com (bulk_mailer v1.9); Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:59:32 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27249
	for tiff-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:59:31 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: gate7.olympiakos.com: majordom set sender to owner-tiff@olympiakos.com using -f
Received: from gw.errno.com (node-d1d4bd7a.powerinter.net [209.212.189.122])
	by gate7.olympiakos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27246
	for <tiff@olympiakos.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:59:29 -0500
Received: from melange (melange.errno.com [209.212.166.36])
	by gw.errno.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA21399;
	Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <023701c05323$f5b87080$24a6d4d1@melange>
From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com>
To: "Bill Radcliffe" <BillR@corbis.com>,
        "Jeffrey L. Urlwin" <jurlwin@caci.com>
Cc: <tiff@olympiakos.com>
References: <OFF4C0F6F9.C990050C-ON8525699D.00600879@hq.caci.com>
Subject: Re: TIFF Standards?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:59:07 -0800
Organization: Errno Consulting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
Sender: owner-tiff@olympiakos.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey L. Urlwin" <jurlwin@caci.com>
To: "Bill Radcliffe" <BillR@corbis.com>
Cc: <tiff@olympiakos.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:53 AM
Subject: RE: TIFF Standards?


>
> I would agree that a reference implementation would be good.  I remember,
> though, that libTiff in older formats had a printf (which was converted to
> a MessageBox on Win32) for every tag it didn't recognize, even if it was
in
> the private tag range.  That, I think, should be fixed so that private
tags
> are ignored, to set the appropriate example.
>

Good idea! I like it so long as you can turn it on+off.  I'd probably
default it to off (don't print warnings about unknown private tags).

    Sam


