31 Aug
2011
31 Aug
'11
12:32 p.m.
On 08/31/2011 08:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
Understood. That is very sad. I guess they "go through the motions"
so they can claim they've released the spec, but it's not complete
enough to enable someone to truly take advantage of the format.
Is it at least the case that someone can "see the damn image" (which
is usually the end point of digital imaging anyway) even if a lot of the
metadata, layering, etc etc aren't usable?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Riiiiight.
Like PSD for example, which is documented. Perhaps not
WELL, but it's documented. (as you know intimately from your work on
that parser)
As I also said: It's not documented sufficiently to reconstruct any non
trivial image. Only Photoshop can rasterise a PSD (and even then, it
must be undamaged, and you have to find a sufficiently new version of
Photoshop, etc). Calling what Adobe provides "documentation" isn't fair
to real documentors. :)