Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:27:16 +0100 From: Dave Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> Selon Robert L Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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 <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@xxxxxxxxxxxx Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
