attachment-0001
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=975335000-07082001>Lloyd,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=975335000-07082001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001>Some
thoughts on UIF ISSUE 02:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=975335000-07082001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><B><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">ISSUE
02</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">: Should we break UIF Profile C
into two profiles—one to represent a baseline grayscale configuration and the
other to represent a baseline color configuration? This way, a greater number of
device capabilities configurations would be allowed without requiring an
implementation of CONNEG. What about L profile which currently only
requires gray scale with color optional?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">The IPP FAX
WG agreed that having separate color and gray scale profiles for UIF
Profile C would be a good idea. However, there is a strong precedent for
profiles being identified by a single letter in both the IETF and the ITU
TIFF/FX standards. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">Currently, profile C
in both TIFF/FX and UIF REQUIRE only 8 bits per pixel gray scale with color
OPTIONAL.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">One possibility, would
be for UIF to increase the requirements for the UIF C Profile to REQUIRE full
color LAB, (24 bits per pixel). This would mean changing Table 9 (UIF
Profile C Baseline Fields) in the UIF spec as
follows:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">
SamplesPerPixel:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">
Change: 1**: L* (lightness) To: 1: L*
(lightness)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">
Change: 3: LAB To: 3**:
LAB</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">Then invent a new
profile that has 8 bits per pixel gray scale as a minimum and doesn't have color
at all. We could call that Profile, G, for grayscale. The (new)
Tables for UIF Profile G would be the same as the old Tables for C with the
following change:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">
SamplesPerPixel:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal"> No
change: 1**: L* (lightness)</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">
Delete: 3: LAB</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">What does breaking C
into C and G do for the tree diagram in section 3.1? Would M require C, or
G, or both?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></FONT></SPAN></DIV>Would
the letter G be a good choice for the gray scale UIF Profile (G for gray
scale)? Or is TIFF/FX likely to want to add a new profile that
REQUIRES color too, but they can't change what the C Profile means to REQUIRE
color, since C currently only REQUIRES gray scale. If TIFF/FX might also
want to have a new color-required Profile, then UIF would want to assign a new
letter to the color-required Profile and keep C to mean gray scale
required. If so, what letter do you suggest for the new color-required UIF
and TIFF/FX Profile?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>For
the UIF L profile, you suggested that its main purpose was business graphics,
i.e., a small number of colors with a color palette, rather than gray
scale. Instead breaking the UIF L Profile into two profiles since
gray scale isn't so useful for business graphic, how about increasing the
minimum requirement for UIF L profile from 8-bits per pixel gray scale to LAB
palette with n equals 2 through 6**, giving 2 to the power n palette entries
with n=6 REQUIRED (64 palette entries)? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>This
would mean changing Table 12 (UIF Profile L Baseline Fields) as
follows:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> BitsPerSample: </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=975335000-07082001> Add: n=2-6**: 2 to the power n palette
entries</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> Change: 8**: 8 bits per color sample To:
8: 8 bits per color sample</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001></SPAN><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>and
changing Table 13 (UIF Profile L Extension Fields) as
follows:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> Indexed:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> Change: 1: palette-color image To:
1**: palette-color image</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> Change: MUST if image uses palette color;
otherwise MAY To: MUST</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Comments?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Thanks,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=975335000-07082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Tom
Hastings and John Pulera</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Hastings, Tom N
[mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 06, 2001
13:34<BR><B>To:</B> Lloyd McIntyre (E-mail)<BR><B>Cc:</B> IPP FAX DL
(E-mail)<BR><B>Subject:</B> FW: IFX> IPPFax Minutes -- August 2001
[questions for Lloyd McInt yre]<BR><B>Importance:</B>
High<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001>Lloyd,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001>From
the IPPFAX WG meeting last week, there are two issue resolutions that the
group wants your input on for the UIF document. I've also asked for your
advice on Issue 01 and Issue 04. We're having another telecon, this
Thursday, August 9, 8 AM PST. It would help if you could respond by then
to the mailing list. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001>Here
are the 4 issues, agreements, and questions to you, extracted from the
IPPFAX minutes:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000
size=3></FONT>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><B><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">ISSUE
01</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal">:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Should the capabilities discovery
portion of this spec be removed and placed into a specification that deals
solely with how IPPFAX uses capabilities discovery? Advantages: other
applications interested in using UIF simply as a data format can do so (no
prohibitive excess baggage).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2>The group thought it was a good idea to either create a
new document or move the sections relating to capabilities discovery (e.g.,
UIF Section 4) to the IFX protocol spec.</P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001>Lloyd: The
advantage of a separate document, as opposed to moving it to the IFX protocol
spec (IPP FAX Protocol spec), is that if some other protocol wanted to use UIF
as a document format and use CONNEG, such as Internet FAX, they could do so
without having to reference the IFX protocol).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001><B><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal">ISSUE 02</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal">: Should we break UIF Profile C into two
profiles—one to represent a baseline grayscale configuration and the other to
represent a baseline color configuration? This way, a greater number of device
capabilities configurations would be allowed without requiring an
implementation of CONNEG. (The same could apply to UIF Profile
L).</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2>The group decided this is a good idea; however we felt
it a good idea to check with Lloyd McIntyre about the direction in which
TIFF-FX is heading and why TIFF-FX hasn’t adopted a similarly tiered scheme
for Profiles C and L. Also, we need to check with Lloyd about what the
consequences should be to the tree diagram shown in section 3.1.</P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2> </P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001>Lloyd: Can you
answer?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B>ISSUE 04</B>: (not in the document; see section 5.1.1)
Should we change the MIME media registration to be simply a single value for
the application parameter and add a new<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>'profile' parameter which is multi-valued to indicate the profiles that
are in the document? For example:</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center>Content type:
image/tiff; application=uif; profile=uif-s,uif-c,uif-mcs</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2>Yes this is a good idea, except the profile portion of
the mime type (i.e., “profile=uif-s,uif-c,uif-mcs” in above example) should be
OPTIONAL, and indicates those profiles that a Receiver can expect to (but not
necessarily) find in the UIF data.</P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2> </P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001>Lloyd: Do you see
any problem if the MIME Content Type includes some profiles that the document
doesn't actually use? </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001>I'd like to hear the
group's ideas on why they added this caveat. For example, if a client is
capable of scanning color, but the user requests that the document be scanned
in gray scale, the client MUST NOT include the color profile in the Content
Type. On the other hand, if the user didn't request to scan in gray
scale, and the Sender's default is to scan in color, but the document scanned
only had black and white, is that when it is ok for the Sender to include the
color profile in the Content Type, even though the document didn't actually
contain any color?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoBodyText2><SPAN class=096151420-06082001> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Additional UIF-related issues raised at meeting:</P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B>ISSUE 06</B>: (raised at meeting) In the current spec,
the ‘FaxProfile’ tag introduced in RFC2301 is re-interpreted as the
‘UIFProfile’ tag for UIF Documents. Also, the meaning of each value for this
tag is redefined to refer to inclusion of UIF profiles rather than IFAX ones.
The group thought this is not a legitimate thing to do. Should we register a
<I>new</I> TIFF tag to represent the UIF profiles present in a given IFD? Ask
Lloyd about this…</P>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=096151420-06082001>Lloyd: Your comments
on the above questions.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=096151420-06082001></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN class=096151420-06082001></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal"><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001>Thanks,</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: normal"><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001></SPAN><SPAN
class=096151420-06082001>Tom</SPAN> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> John Pulera
[mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 03, 2001
19:23<BR><B>To:</B> IPP-Fax Group<BR><B>Subject:</B> IFX> IPPFax Minutes
-- August 2001<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=656251202-04082001>Meeting minutes<SPAN
class=760431802-04082001> </SPAN>are now available from the August 1
IPPFAX meeting in Toronto. Thanks Marty for taking notes during review of
IFX issues:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656251202-04082001></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><A
href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/minutes/IPPFAX-0108-minutes.doc">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/minutes/IPPFAX-0108-minutes.doc</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><A
href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/minutes/IPPFAX-0108-minutes.pdf"><FONT
face=Arial>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/minutes/IPPFAX-0108-minutes.<SPAN
class=656251202-04082001>pdf</SPAN></FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656251202-04082001></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656251202-04082001></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=656251202-04082001>John
Pulera</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=656251202-04082001></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=656251202-04082001>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=1>-----------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=1>John Pulera</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=1>Minolta Systems Laboratory</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=1><A
href="mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com">jpulera@minolta-mil.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=1>(949)737-4520 x348</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>