Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@remotesensing.org>
Received: from inmx007.isp.belgacom.be (inmx007.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.3.89])
        by mailst034.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-MAILSTORE-2.14) with ESMTP id i8HGS2Lj014428
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:28:06 +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 inmx007.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id i8HGRqTa000738
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:27:54 +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 F16FB2F6A53; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:27:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Delivered-To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Received: from visa.com (portal3.visa.com [198.80.42.3])
	by xserve.flids.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8852F6A30
	for <tiff@remotesensing.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([10.72.86.29]) by portal3.visa.com with ESMTP ;
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sw720ex016.visa.com ([10.72.11.170]) by sw720ex001.visa.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); 
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:26:56 -0700
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:34:04 -0700
Message-ID: <4BCF88971C5D964094550DF1B35532A81F2DE7@sw720ex016.visa.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue
Thread-Index: AcSc0iod1Q0DoKPmTouSco5j7xPjMQAAIRSg
From: "Loygorri, Fernando" <FLoygorr@inovant.com>
To: "Joris" <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2004 16:26:56.0507 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[2622E4B0:01C49CD3]
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: c02bfe4ec91c8748e0640dd015d2ab48

> I have the same problem in Delphi. But I decided to just not=20
> care. What are the
> odds of a file growing beyond 2^63-1 bytes?

As I asked in another reply, what is the problem with the spec
limiting the size to 2^63-1 instead of 2^64-1, then?

> If you're unsure about that, another option is to always=20
> check whether the 64bit
> value is negative, and if it is, error out.

But, then I cannot claim that the tool I write supports BigTIFF,
just a subset of it, which is no good for my purposes.

> And even if it is a problem, adjusting the spec to compensate for our
> implementation trouble, is, I think, not very good practice.=20
> The major factor in
> spec design should be logic, instead, and this logically is=20
> an unsigned value
> and there is no logical reason to discriminate bit 63.

I disagree. There is nothing magic about the number 64. When 32
bits were becoming a straitjacket, the jump to 64 bits was made
because we already have a convenient data type for it in
languages like C. The equally convenient value for Java and
Delphi is 63.

Regards,

FGL=20
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
Tiff@remotesensing.org
http://xserve.flids.com/mailman/listinfo/tiff
