Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabsy!hpfcso!hpfcdq!olsen
From: olsen@hpfcdq.HP.COM (John Olsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: HAM-E not IFF??
Message-ID: <4710008@hpfcdq.HP.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 90 18:07:52 GMT
References: <00363@sarek.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 23

>gsarff@sarek.UUCP (Gary Sarff) writes:
>>In what way does a HAM-E picture not adhere to IFF? ...
>>... the color registers that the new modes use
>>are in subsequent scan lines of the _BODY_.

jeh@elmgate.UUCP (Ed Hanway) writes:
>But any program reading the file would have to  recognize the Black Belt 
>cookie in the body to know that these are the "real" color registers, not
>the ones in the color map.

How about removing the IFF/non-IFF debate entirely by making programs read
24 bit/pixel files (already standard) and write HAM-E into memory.  When you
save the picture, write it back out as a 24 bit/pixel file again.  Any 
program that can handle 24 bit/pixel can then chew on the image without
caring a single whit whether the owner wants to display it on a custom frame
buffer or a Black Belt box.

It still means modifying all those paint programs to know about the BB box,
and making them know how to read and write 24 bit/pixel files, but the 
argument about file formats and specs goes away.  The color table cookies 
only exist while the image is in memory.

Comments? Flames? Money?