Received: from mailgate002.isp.belgacom.be (mailgate002.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.6.87])
	by maildelivery020.isp.belgacom.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60087AC005
	for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Thu,  7 Feb 2008 18:46:42 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: in.mx.skynet.be; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received: from r153.dmsolutions.ca (HELO duke.maptools.org) ([209.217.116.153])
  by in.mx.skynet.be with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 18:46:41 +0100
Received: from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m17HPMtn017334;
	Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:26:05 -0500
Received: from zynlfw01.zylab.com (mx.zylab.com [194.178.9.130])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m17HPIcu017331
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:25:19 -0500
Received: from zynlms01.ZyLAB.WAN (zynlms01.zylab.wan [192.168.1.10])
	by zynlfw01.zylab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002B68CF;
	Thu,  7 Feb 2008 18:25:16 +0100 (CET)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Tiff Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:23:03 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Message-ID: <FC840EC0BF7BFA45A0F94548AF36920D020CAA22@zynlms01.ZyLAB.WAN>
In-Reply-To: <47A9EB13.1090005@hulmail.harvard.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Tiff] Tiff Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
Thread-Index: Acho5mCrFfribxcBTnKrsjPa1Ur7/AAxdghQ
References: <200802061703.m16H30a9028840@duke.maptools.org>
	<47A9EB13.1090005@hulmail.harvard.edu>
From: "Gerben Vos" <Gerben@ZyLAB.COM>
To: <tiff@lists.maptools.org>
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by duke.maptools.org id
	m17HPIcu017331
Cc: Gary McGath <gary@hulmail.harvard.edu>
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-UIDL: 000000000023ceae.00002a7e
X-MSP-STORE: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:46:42 +0100
Status: RO

Gary McGath wrote:

> One issue which concerns me, specifically with regard to long-term=20
> preservation, is that there is no vendor-independent specification for=20
> ZIP. This doesn't matter for most users, since the format is=20
> well-documented, but it has "reserved" fields, which raise questions fo=
r=20
> the reconstruction of ZIP archives decades later. I discussed that issu=
e=20
> a little here:
> http://fileformats.blogspot.com/2007/08/should-there-be-iso-zip-standar=
d.html

Neither TIFF nor ZLIB uses the ZIP file structure (which indeed hasn't
been independently specified). They only use the Deflate compression
method from ZIP, which has been specified as RFC1951. Not as good as
ISO standardization, but not as bad as you seem to indicate. It also
has much less "reserved" fields.

					Gerben Vos.

_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
