IPP> Revised Charter Text for IPP

IPP> Revised Charter Text for IPP

IPP> Revised Charter Text for IPP

Raymond Lutz raylutz at cognisys.com
Sun Dec 29 16:13:50 EST 1996

I agree with your split between the two applications. As far as "overlap"
is concerned, there is still some indirect overlap, since the document
received in the fax submission process will still need to be submitted to
local devices. I would think that a minimum of reformatting the controls
already received would be a good design goal.

I have done my part and broached this issue, since it needed to be. I am
happy with the airing of the issue, so I won't further clutter the airwaves
until we get closer on the charter issue. At that point, maybe we can
revisit this issue and see if it makes any sense or not.


At 08:19 PM 12/29/96 +0100, Harald.T.Alvestrand at uninett.no wrote:
>The fundamental difference that hasn't been mentioned so far between
>the "print" paradigm and the "fax" paradigm is that in the "print"
>paradigm, I generally want to create hard copy for my own use, on
>equipment that I have some control over (usually controlled by the same
>In the "fax" case, I usually want to move an image into equipment owned
>by someone else, and they have the right to have a VERY heavy influence
>on how it is handled.
>Let's get away from discussing overlap in the abstract and back to
>discussing the specific printer charter; I haven't yet seen a charter
>that I'd be willing to approve, so at the moment there is nothing to
>overlap with.
>                Harald A

** Raymond Lutz                             Voice: 619-447-3246
** Director R & D, Cognisys, Inc.           Fax:   619-447-6872 
** EC Chair, MFPA                           MFPA:  1-800-603-MFPA
** 1010 Old Chase Ave., Suite B             mailto:raylutz at cognisys.com
** El Cajon (San Diego Co.), CA 92020 USA   http://www.cognisys.com           
**                                          http://www.mfpa.org

More information about the Ipp mailing list