John,
> I believe it would be better and faster to resolve the IP issues quickly and
> publish TIFF-FX as a single revised document. The revised document should
> restrict the use of the existing image/tiff MIME type and .tif (or .tiff)
> file name extensions to profiles S and F, and assign a new MIME type and
> file name extension for the profiles J, C, L, and M (perhaps image/tifx and
> .tfx (or .tifx)). By restricting image/tiff to profiles S and F, TIFF-FX
> keeps compatibility with TIFF-6. By allowing image/tiff and .tif (or .tiff)
> for the S and F profiles, TIFF-FX reflects what exists in many deployed
> TIFF-FX devices.
>
> Let’s call this solution option 5. It’s a variant of options 1 and 4.
Yes, a good idea. One document is better for all implementers, I think.
But, how do we separate is the discussion issue.
<snip>
> If the document remains as one, we avoid spending the time to edit and gain
> acceptance of the new documents. In addition, with a single document there
> are more people to pressure Adobe and Xerox to agree quickly on the IP
> issues.
Right. We need to avoid spending time for our market.
Thanks for your comment.
Regards,
-- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:42:59 EDT