Peter, I just ask you for the ISO submission number and date.
Not links to comments on blogs, posts on usenet, obscure bulletin boards or suggestion to use Google. I want to see a trace of it on http://www.iso.org, something OFFICIAL.
As far as I can tell, DNG was never submitted for standardization.
The post you mention is just from a single individual, and it does not say anything about DNG being submitted for standardization. TIFF/EP being revised with input from DNG ("[having] Adobe's permission to incorporate modifications and developments made for DNG") does not say the Adobe DNG 1.3 specification will become an ISO standard. In fact the post in question was a call for input from anyone, saying the group in charge of TIFF/EP was open to suggestions (which is hardly surprizing).
There is a fine line between incorporating elements of DNG into an existing standard, and making DNG a standard in itself even if DNG was indeed derived from the TIFF/EP. Unofficial Adobe voices (like yours) are riding that line and interpreting it in a way that makes people believe that DNG is a standard, or close to become one.
In fact, unlike TIFF and TIFF/EP, DNG is proprietary and I'm under the impression that Adobe never really had any real intention to standardize it. Proof is the recent additions of the undocumented lossy and fast-load options that creates "DNG" files that only Adobe can read back safely.
DNG just became a closed, opaque format as those additions (some of them turned on by default in recent Adobe software e.g. Lightroom 4.0 and 4.1) are breaking and the lack of documentation makes it very difficult at best for anyone else to read those files.
How do you correlate this recent behavior with a standard, documented and stable format? I call it bait-and-switch from a company working on securing its future more than anything else.
Peter, I just ask you for the ISO submission number and date.
Not links to comments on blogs, posts on usenet, obscure bulletin boards or suggestion to use Google. I want to see a trace of it on http://www.iso.org, something OFFICIAL.
As far as I can tell, DNG was never submitted for standardization.
The post you mention is just from a single individual, and it does not say anything about DNG being submitted for standardization. TIFF/EP being revised with input from DNG ("[having] Adobe's permission to incorporate modifications and developments made for DNG") does not say the Adobe DNG 1.3 specification will become an ISO standard. In fact the post in question was a call for input from anyone, saying the group in charge of TIFF/EP was open to suggestions (which is hardly surprizing).
There is a fine line between incorporating elements of DNG into an existing standard, and making DNG a standard in itself even if DNG was indeed derived from the TIFF/EP. Unofficial Adobe voices (like yours) are riding that line and interpreting it in a way that makes people believe that DNG is a standard, or close to become one.
In fact, unlike TIFF and TIFF/EP, DNG is proprietary and I'm under the impression that Adobe never really had any real intention to standardize it. Proof is the recent additions of the undocumented lossy and fast-load options that creates "DNG" files that only Adobe can read back safely.
DNG just became a closed, opaque format as those additions (some of them turned on by default in recent Adobe software e.g. Lightroom 4.0 and 4.1) are breaking and the lack of documentation makes it very difficult at best for anyone else to read those files.
How do you correlate this recent behavior with a standard, documented and stable format? I call it bait-and-switch from a company working on securing its future more than anything else.