Sorry to have not been in attendance.
I would agree with the split proposed by Paul.
Other WG efforts may benefit from the 'negotiated image format'
effort independent of the FAX issues.
Regards,
Greg LeClair
P1394.3 PPDT Chair
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ifx@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ifx@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry
> Lewis/Boulder/IBM
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:47 PM
> To: pmoore@peerless.com
> Cc: ifx@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
>
>
> Life always gets interesting when an essential "must have" overlaps
> directly with "no way José"!
>
> The motivation for "QualDocs" apparently embraced both sets of
> requirements - the "IPP Fax" AND broader "driverless" printing goals. I
> support Paul's recommendation to split the specification as an effective
> way to address the (powerful but unique) semantics of IPP-FAX (legal
> issues etc.) Still, I feel both efforts are essentially follow-on to IPP
> and need to be remain coordinated to prevent rampant divergence.
>
>
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
>
>
>
>
> pmoore@peerless.com
> Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org
> 09/25/2000 11:47 AM
>
>
> To: ifx@pwg.org
> cc:
> Subject: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
>
>
> Firstly, thanks to all who attended the initial IPP Fax (as I must now
> learn to
> call it) meeting in Chicago.
>
> The passionate (did I hear heated, even) debate was a good sign; people
> think
> this is important and we all have strong ideas about what should be
> delivered.
> Ron Bergman has posted detailed minutes for the meeting (thanks
> Ron) but I
> will
> repeat here the major points.
>
> 1. The name was changed from Qualdocs to IPP Fax. Most people felt
> Qualdocs was
> not clear and did not translate well for non USA attendees.
>
> 2. The charter was updated and accepted. No major changes were made to the
> charter except to specifically state the we were building on IPP. Tee
> modified
> version is on the web site http://pwg.org/qualdocs/index.html.
>
> 3. We thrashed out what we meant by 'high bars' low bars' 'negotiated' ,
> etc.
> with regards to image parameters.
>
> What did become apparent was a split in people's views about how this
> technology
> is to be used. The FAX attendees saw this as a 100% FAX product - whereas
> the
> broader imaging attendees (printers, copiers, scanners) saw wider
> usefullness in
> having a standardised, negotiated image format (as well as Faxing).
>
> The wider uses include things like copier to copier copying, network
> scanning,
> ad-hoc printing, etc.
>
> Specifically the debate came down to whether or not the transmitted
> documents
> needed to be watermarked or stamped in some way. For the pure fax people
> this
> was a must, for the wider uses this would be a disaster. I am sure there
> will be
> other divisions too. I had crafted the charter to allow for the
> wider uses
> as
> well as the fax case but no form of word crafting can get round this
> fundamental
> divide. The solution I propose is that we split the spec into two pieces.
>
> A) A common agreed image format with some form of negotiation /
> discovery.
> This
> can be used regardless of whether or not the transport is doing 'IPP fax'
> or
> not. We will end up specifying the rules associated with saying that you
> support
> 'application/tiff-fx' as a document format.
>
> B) A set of enhancements to IPP to get 100% into Faxing on the internet.
> Includes identity exchange, security, watermarking, etc. We would make A a
> pre-requisiste
>
> Actually splitting might well speed things up (divide and conquer)
>
> What do people think?
>
> Paul Moore
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 17:31:17 EDT