IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about 'image/tiff' IPP document format]

IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about 'image/tiff' IPP document format]

IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about 'image/tiff' IPP document format]

Carl-Uno Manros carl at manros.com
Thu May 13 23:31:46 EDT 1999


This is all interesting stuff, but please let this be for now and let the
new QAULDOCS project sort this out. We are trying to put a lid on the
IPP/1.1 specs for now.

Carl-Uno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Hastings,
> Tom N
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 9:42 AM
> To: harryl at us.ibm.com; Larry Masinter
> Cc: don at lexmark.com; cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org; McIntyre,
> Lloyd
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about
> 'image/tiff' IPP document format]
>
>
> Unfortunately, the current mechanism in IPP for a Printer to list the
> document formats that it supports is to list the MIME types, possibly with
> parameters that have been registered with the MIME type.
>
> For the MIME type image/tiff there are only two parameters registered:
> faxbw and faxcolor.  There has been debate what the meaning of
> 'image/tiff'
> without any parameters.  Some say that without either parameter
> the document
> format supported is the 1994 TIFF spec that doesn't have tiff/fx
> (TIFFPLUS).
> Some say that in order to indicate that you support tiff/fx, you must add
> either the 'faxbw' or the 'faxcolor' parameter.
>
> Here is the Feb 1999 registration.  I don't know whether it has been since
> clarified any more.  Until it is, we decided it was best not to mention
> 'image/tiff' as one of the example mimeMediaType values in IPP Model
> document.  We will clarify this as part of QUALDOCS.
>
>    To: IANA at isi.edu
>
>    Subject: Registration of new Application parameter values for
>    image/tiff
>
>    MIME media type name: image/tiff
>
>    Optional parameters: Application
>
>    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.
> The definition of the use of this value is contained in Section 9 of
> this document (TIFFPLUS).
>
> 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. The definition of the use of this value is
> contained in Section 9 of this document (TIFFPLUS).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: harryl at us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:28
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: don at lexmark.com; cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP?
>
>
>
>
> I don't think it is necessary to mandate support for a minimum
> format in ipp
> (the standards specification) - but rather in the implementations
> that want
> to
> described themselves as "i-fax" capable. IPP already has the ability to
> indicate
> PDL support. I don't believe there would be anything to prevent indicating
> support for TIFF-F or TIFF FX via IPP.
>
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> harryl at us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> "Larry Masinter" <masinter at parc.xerox.com> on 05/12/99 08:28:03 AM
>
> To:   don at lexmark.com, cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
> cc:   ipp at pwg.org (bcc: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM)
> Subject:  RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP?
>
>
>
>
>
> I think before you start e-printing or ipping things to each other,
> you need to face the small technical details that will
> get in the way:
>
> a) document format. Although IPP is a nice interoperable
> protocol, one person's IPP server won't necessarily do the
> right thing with another person's IPP client's documents
> unless there's a little more care played with
> printer-formats-supported. I think what you really
> need for guaranteed interoperability is:
>   1) a minimum format that everyone is guaranteed to understand
>      (TIFF profile S, anyone?)
>   2) some better way of the sender determining recipient
>       capabilities (printer-features using CONNEG syntax, anyone?)
>
> b) sender and recipient identification. Although IPP has some
> features that might be used for these, you won't have interoperability
> until you standardize on their use. You need:
>    1) sender identification. While the 'authentication'
>    used for authorization to use the printer might serve
>    as an identification, sometimes it doesn't. You need
>    to clearly say which parts of IPP are supposed to be
>    used for "who is this from", and encourage the use
>    of this material on the cover sheet.
>    2) recipient identification. Maybe this is the "user name"?
>    The problem is that with "printing" the "sender" is usually
>    the same as the "recipient". You know, I "print" something
>    by "e-print"ing it to myself. But I think IPP has only one
>    user field, whereas if you're going to use it for
>    communication, you need two.
>
> So, before going off into too many more flights of fancy about
> internet printing, could you focus a bit on the issues that
> were labelled "IPP2FAX" before?
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>
>
>
>
>




More information about the Ipp mailing list