Stan explained the differences between two enhancements:

>> I wonder if items # 27 & # 28 could be productively combined .

> They're different.  #27 allows people/tools to say "hey, file FOO
> should be stored/purged when this database is stored/purged".
> You don't necessarily know what the file FOO is used for...

> #28 allows tools to say "hey, let's remember that I was here,
> and that I noticed xxxx about this database".  ....  This has little
> to do with files ... As it turns out, it would be very easy to add
> both to IMAGE nowdays ...

O.K.  They will stay as separate enhancement requests...  Since
Stan said that it would now be "very easy" to add both, maybe
they should be listed as "S"mall efforts instead of "M"edium.   ;-)

But then Michael said:

> It seems reasonable to think that if one were implemented,
> the other would be "almost there", so I say combine them.

That was driving idea behind the combo proposal.  But see above.

>> Basically we appear to have two schools of thought WRT BLOBs:

> I suggested to the SIEC that I'm in favor of *both* approaches.
> (When given a choice between A and B, I like to choose C :)

So did I.  I refer you again to my paragraph # 2:

> 2)   Users should be able to store reasonably small BLOBs ...
> directly in an IMAGE database.  Large BLOBs are best handled
> as in (1) immediately above.
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, my # (2) is the same as Stan's "C"..  Except he said it better..
:-)

>> on this one).  One member of the SIEC threw out 64K

> Me...that was me...

Assure you I was 100 percent aware when I wrote what I did.
Sorry for lack of direct attribution.

> (sheesh, it's too late tonight, Xena's over,

Resorting to scanning Xena frames for new Magic cards now,
Stan ??    :-)

.... *way* past Scarlett O'Hara time (you know:  I won't think
about this anymore today:  I'll think about it tomorrow...  maybe).

Ken Sletten
SIGIMAGE Chair