Here’s the link to the most recent patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8154058/webrev.03/
Sorry for the omission. Thanks, Brian On Dec 13, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Brian Burkhalter <[email protected]> wrote: > This should be the final patch. The actual implementation code is unchanged > from webrev.01, which was approved in terms of the spec change, which has > also now been approved by the CCC. This patch differs from webrev.02 only in > terms of renaming ReadParamTest to ReadUnknownTagsTest, and changing the > ignoreMetadata settings in MultiPageImageTIFFFieldTest and > TIFFImageReadParamTest from true to false. These latter two changes are > needed as previously non-essential fields in recognized tag sets were read > even if ignoreMetadata was true, which is now not the case. > > Thanks, > > Brian > > On Dec 8, 2016, at 5:43 PM, Brian Burkhalter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Here is an updated patch >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8154058/webrev.02/ >> >> which differs from the previous one only in terms of the test which has been >> updated to verify that: >> >> 1) essential metadata are not affected by the settings of ignoreMetadata and >> readUnknownTags; >> 2) non-essential metadata with a recognized tag are suppressed by >> ignoreMetadata == true, but when ignoreMetadata == false are unaffected by >> the setting of readUnknownTags; >> 3) metadata with an unrecognized tag are read if and only if ignoreMetadata >> == false and readUnknownTags == true. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Brian >> >> On Dec 8, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Phil Race <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think that spec. looks good so you can at least proceed with the CCC. >>> >>> -phil. >>> >>> On 12/07/2016 01:07 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: >>>> Reprising thread [1]. >>>> >>>> Issue: >>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2016-August/007449.html >>>> Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8154058/webrev.01/ >>>> Doc: >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8154058/tiff_metadata.html#MetadataIssuesRead >>>> >>>> Note that this is a preliminary version as an improved test will be >>>> needed. A CCC review will be in order however so it would be best to get >>>> far enough to submit a request. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2016-August/007449.html
