Date: Wed,  5 Jan 2005 18:27:16 +0100
   From: Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   Selon Robert L Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
   >       There is now a file called "exif-handling.txt" in devel-docs
   >       that summarizes my understanding, based on the exif
   >       specifications, of how an image editor is supposed to handle the
   >       exif data in a file.  Of course we need not take the
   >       specifications as gospel (among other things, they specify that
   >       a proper EXIF file must have a file name in 8.3 format, ending
   >       in .JPG!), but they should serve as a good default.
   > Adobe at least had an excuse with PPD files 10 years ago.  There's no
   > excuse for 8.3 any more.

   Before people get high-horsey about this, consider that 90% of
   digital cameras have embedded DOS as their OS, and are thus unable
   to generate files which are not 8.3.

There's nothing wrong with digital cameras *creating* 8.3 files.  The
problem is the *requirement* that EXIF files have 8.3 names.  This
makes me concerned that some EXIF programs will gratuitously enforce
this requirement.  There are PPD-using applications that choke on
non-conformant file names (or complain if the *PCFileName attribute is
missing or ill-formed).

Robert Krawitz                                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Tall Clubs International  -- or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gimp Print   --

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to