2004.05.27 01:15 "[Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
- 2004.05.27 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 09:25 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.05.27 10:43 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 12:49 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 13:05 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.05.27 18:31 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Chris Cox
- 2004.06.01 11:50 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 16:37 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.06.04 13:31 "RE: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Ed Grissom
- 2004.06.09 20:33 "[Tiff] Re: large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
2004.06.04 15:03 "RE: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Ed Grissom
The tag itself includes the type information, so I don't see any particular problem with allowing either type for the StripOffsets and TileOffsets field.
Ah yes, I was not thinking properly. Obviously since in the current TIFF, these can be either short or long.
ed grissom
egrissom@ziimaging.com