SM> RE: JDF FileSpec/@FileFormatVersionand IPP "document-form at-versi on"for PDF/X and TIFF/IT

SM> RE: JDF FileSpec/@FileFormatVersionand IPP "document-form at-versi on"for PDF/X and TIFF/IT

SM> RE: JDF FileSpec/@FileFormatVersionand IPP "document-form at-versi on"for PDF/X and TIFF/IT

McCarthy, Ann L AMcCarthy at crt.xerox.com
Thu Mar 20 11:17:07 EST 2003


Martin,

One question:
What is FP? I did not see that in the 1998 standard - my impression
from reading the spec is that TIFF/IT is the all inclusive designation. 
Is that not correct?

Also, regarding your comment:
>But, as I commented above, the list in the spec can only be regarded as 
>incomplete, so it might be better to explicitly make it a set of examples 
>and include only some of these?
It seems better to me to put the complete list that you have provided into 
the spec. One benefit is that it clearly warns readers that each of these
conformance levels is distinct.

Regards,
Ann

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann L. McCarthy
XIG/SSTC Imaging Systems Architect
Internal:8*221-8701     External: 585-231-8701
FAX: 585-265-8871      Mailcode: B128-30E

At 15:27 19/03/2003, Ann McCarthy wrote:
>TIFF/IT files also have several possible conformance levels.
>TIFF/IT conformance strings (given in section 5 of ISO 12639)
>are:
>TIFF/IT
>TIFF/IT-CT
>TIFF/IT-LW
>TIFF/IT-HC
>TIFF/IT-MP
>TIFF/IT-BP
>TIFF/IT-BL
>TIFF/IT-P1
>TIFF/IT-CT/P1
>TIFF/IT-LW/P1
>TIFF/IT-HC/P1
>TIFF/IT-MP/P1
>TIFF/IT-BP/P1
>TIFF/IT-BL/P1
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bailey [mailto:Martin.Bailey at globalgraphics.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 03:03
To: hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Subject: CIP4 Forum Capabilities: Re:JDF FileSpec/@FileFormatVersionand IPP
"document-format-version"for PDF/X and TIFF/IT


Hi Tom

Responses in-line.
....
  Ann's suggested list is almost what we need:
  - I'm not sure what "TIFF/IT" on its own means in that context - did you 
  mean 'FP'? I know FP isn't normative in the 1998 standard (it is in the 
  2003 revision), but that doesn't stop people using it :-)

  - there's a 2003 revision of 12639 in ballot at the moment, so we need a 
  date suffix on all of the above. In theory the P1 subset has not been 
  changed in that revision (we tried not leave it unchanged, anyway), but   
  I'd feel safer with a date suffix still, although that might complicate 
  capabilities reporting somewhat. The revision also adds a new file subtype

  (SD), and a new conformance level (P2). The full list therefore gets a bit

  long:

TIFF/IT-FP:1998
TIFF/IT-CT:1998
TIFF/IT-LW:1998
TIFF/IT-HC:1998
TIFF/IT-MP:1998
TIFF/IT-BP:1998
TIFF/IT-BL:1998
TIFF/IT-FP/P1:1998
TIFF/IT-CT/P1:1998
TIFF/IT-LW/P1:1998
TIFF/IT-HC/P1:1998
TIFF/IT-MP/P1:1998
TIFF/IT-BP/P1:1998
TIFF/IT-BL/P1:1998
TIFF/IT-FP:2003
TIFF/IT-CT:2003
TIFF/IT-LW:2003
TIFF/IT-HC:2003
TIFF/IT-MP:2003
TIFF/IT-BP:2003
TIFF/IT-BL:2003
TIFF/IT-SD:2003
TIFF/IT-FP/P1:2003
TIFF/IT-CT/P1:2003
TIFF/IT-LW/P1:2003
TIFF/IT-HC/P1:2003
TIFF/IT-MP/P1:2003
TIFF/IT-BP/P1:2003
TIFF/IT-BL/P1:2003
(no P1 conformance level of SD)
TIFF/IT-FP/P2:2003
TIFF/IT-CT/P2:2003
TIFF/IT-LW/P2:2003
TIFF/IT-HC/P2:2003
TIFF/IT-MP/P2:2003
TIFF/IT-BP/P2:2003
TIFF/IT-BL/P2:2003
TIFF/IT-SD/P2:2003

But, as I commented above, the list in the spec can only be regarded as 
incomplete, so it might be better to explicitly make it a set of examples 
and include only some of these?

At 07:32 19/03/2003, Bob Taylor wrote:
><bt>
>I would think we'd just use the TIFF MIME type for these (application/TIFF
>?).
></bt>

No, because most TIFF/IT subfile types are not valid TIFF.

Martin





More information about the Sm mailing list