Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
Received: from inas021.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by inav025.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AV-3.00) with ESMTP id jBMNTj2A008414
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:29:45 +0100
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from inmx008.isp.belgacom.be (inmx008.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.5.88])
        by inas021.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AS-2.03) with ESMTP id jBMNTZuj011349
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:29:36 +0100
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (r153.dmsolutions.ca [209.217.116.153] (may be forged))
        by inmx008.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id jBMNTU9j021402
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:29:30 +0100
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
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 jBMNP9Y6020739;
	Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:25:22 -0500
Received: from outmx017.isp.belgacom.be (outmx017.isp.belgacom.be
	[195.238.2.116])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jBMNP5CC020735
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:25:05 -0500
Received: from outmx017.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by outmx017.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22) with
	ESMTP id jBMNOtmZ019005
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:24:55 +0100
	(envelope-from <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>)
Received: from dfgrrxsknr4e (179-190.245.81.adsl.skynet.be [81.245.190.179])
	by outmx017.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11/8.12.11/Skynet-OUT-2.22) with SMTP
	id jBMNOjTl018945; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:24:46 +0100
	(envelope-from <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>)
Message-ID: <001701c6074e$f304a810$b3bef551@dfgrrxsknr4e>
From: "Joris" <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>
To: "Frank Warmerdam" <warmerdam@pobox.com>
References: <20051222190954.93565.qmail@web60325.mail.yahoo.com><001501c6072f$67ab6160$8598f651@dfgrrxsknr4e>
	<931f8ea90512221424r6cfad1b3t21984bb463830a96@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Custom Tags, Private Ifds and other questions
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:25:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Cc: David Scriven <davidwriter@yahoo.com>, tiff@lists.maptools.org
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-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by inav025.isp.belgacom.be id jBMNTj2A008414
X-UIDL: 000000000023ceae.00001024
X-MSP-STORE: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:29:46 --22-99
Status:   

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> > In they do, they essentially dislike TIFF.
>
> Hmm...

LOL.

To my defense, I'm looking at it from the file format point of view, as
usual, rather independent of LibTiff and its current capabilities. ;-)

> > The other option is to register a single tag, and put multiple
> > values in there.
>
> This would be my suggestion too, without knowing too much
> about what you are actually trying to save.  Private IFDs are
> a bit of a hassle to manipulate with libtiff.

I'm not going to start an endless discussion over wat is clearly an
option anyway, but merely mention that the strength of any encoding is
partly determined by its uniformity. If you use two different ways (IFD
+ another structure inside a single private tag) to essentially encode
the single same structure (hi=EBrarchically structured data), then you're
not doing what is most obvious, most intu=EFtive, and should require leas=
t
specification and least code.

But this is just an opinion. ;-)


Joris Van Damme
info@awaresystems.be
http://www.awaresystems.be/
Download your free TIFF tag viewer for windows here:
http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/astifftagviewer.html

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