Anyone who thinks that TIFF is too complex hasn't dealt with
	CGM, ASN.1, CDA, DCA, SGML, or any one of a number of other
	very successful file format.  People seem perfectly capable
	dealing with these others.  Dealing with the format of TIFF
	is frankly less difficult than dealing with the DCT, LZW, and
	FAX encoding of the image data.  The majority of the libraries
	which deal with TIFF are dedicated to these other issues rather
	than with simply decoding the tags and parameters.

	Perhaps people are overwhelmed in comparison with some rather
	simpleminded formats such as GIF, PCX, and BMP, but to suggest
	that TIFF is so complex as to be doomed to failure is ludicrous.

	That doesn't mean that GIF isn't fine, but don't even thing about
	using it in many instances.  GIF is very nice for use in low-end
	photos applications and for screen grabs and such, but it would
	never do for high-volume or high-resolution systems.  FAX is nice,
	but it doesn't do color (and GIF doesn't do B&W all that well).
	JPEG is nice for high-resolution color, but is slow for low-end.

	The advantage TIFF brings to the table is its ability to handle
	all these situations (and then some).  Naturally it's more complex.
	But I'ld rather propose TIFF imaging solutions over imaging
	systems based on having to deal with 3-4 file formats anyday.

	You may find that TIFF is too complicated for your personal tastes
	but please don't wrail against it's complexity.  The complexity
	it contains is required to provide the functionality it does and
	doesn't come close to the complexity found in most commercially
	viable file formats.
