kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/29/91)
In <352@atacama.cs.utexas.edu> jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey) writes: >In article <215@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >| >| I saw a clip from some Mac rag awhile ago talking about how the Mac was >| getting into m ultimedia. It stated that apple had developed a standard >| called MIFF and it was based on the Amiga's IFF standard. [...] > > Why another IFF derivative file format? If Microsoft and Apple feel that > they could use an IFF type standard, why don't they use the one that > already exists rather than going their own (presumably incompatible) way? > I mean, I can understand that Microsoft would want to promulgate a > standard that used Intel byte ordering, but what's Apple's execuse? > Didn't feel like registering with Electronic Arts? Uhrrrrr... Your last statement no doubt sums it up: they'd want to have total control. This is understandable. And since every chunk type is totally new, I'd guess that they felt no need to keep all the rest of the standard? <sigh> So _personally_, I agree: I wish that everyone could decide on one style. But the close second-best route is making the specs public; and they are. For an _interchange_ format, that's really all that is required. Take GIF: it helped out everyone... but that was only because its specs were posted. The fact that it was unlike any previous format did not matter. BTW, if you want to hear real screaming :-), listen to me whenever I find an Amiga animation posted in the Type J non-public format. Now THOSE files make a mockery of IFF's purpose. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> Sidenote: CD-I developers still use standard EA IFF style (including Apple's original EA IFF audio chunks) for interchange between various machines. But you wouldn't recognize most of the new video chunk names.