IPP> MOD - Ok to add 'image/tiff' and 'application/pdf' to IPP/1.1 Model document format list?

IPP> MOD - Ok to add 'image/tiff' and 'application/pdf' to IPP/1.1 Model document format list?

IPP> MOD - Ok to add 'image/tiff' and 'application/pdf' to IPP/1.1 Model document format list?

Richard Shockey rshockey at ix.netcom.com
Wed Feb 17 18:47:55 EST 1999


>Tom,
>
>For printer capability discovery:
> 
>I support just "image/tiff" for the "document-format-supported" attribute 
>and then include "tiff-profiles-supported" as an additional attribute.
>"image/tiff" indicates that at least profile S is supported and if this is
>satisfactory, the client has all the information necessary.  If the client
>wishes to use a more advanced profile of TIFF, either two requests can be
>submitted or he can request both attributes in one request.

As we have just cleared up .. there are two image/tiff application types.

We should stick to what IANA should have posted.

Then I agree as well that "tiff-profiles-supported" would be a proper
additional attribute to develop.

And there are 6 profles.

Profile S, F, J, C, L and M

To quote from what should have been in the IANA registry.

New Value(s): faxbw, faxcolor

Description of Use:

 faxbw - The "faxbw" application parameter is suitable for use by
applications that can process one or more TIFF for facsimile profiles  or
subsets used for the encoding of black-and-white facsimile data. 

 faxcolor - The "faxcolor" application parameter is suitable for use  by
applications that can process one or more TIFF for facsimile profiles or
subsets that can be used for the encoding of black and white, AND color
facsimile data. 

>For job submission:
>
>Do we need to treat job submission for TIFF any differently than other
>PDLs?  For PCL, a version number of PCL is not included as an Operation or
>Job Template attribute.  This situation with TIFF should be treated as if
>this was a real fax.  That is, the client should only send a TIFF profile
>that it is sure the target printer will properly process.  If the client
>has the ability to discover the supported profiles, it should not be
>needed to be supplied in the job submission.

This seems quite reasonable.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC                  
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110    
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax   314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com
eFAX 815.333.1237  
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



More information about the Ipp mailing list