I've updated the UIF spec to contain modifications suggested by Tom Hastings
and Robert Buckley since the last IPP-FAX face-to-face.
changes from version 0.8 to 0.9 noted:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-09-rev.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-09-rev.pdf
clean:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-09.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/uif-spec-09.pdf
Here are the major changes to the document:
(1) Moved the definition of the newly defined UIF-specific TIFF-FX
extensions to Appendix B of the document. Note that Appendix B will be
removed once the TIFF-FX Extension 2 Internet Draft is available.
(2) Removed "UIF Profile S" nomenclature, as the IPPFax working group and
Lloyd McIntyre decided it would be best to use Profile S the way it is
described in TIFF-FX.
(3) Renamed Section 4 from "Sender Requirements" to "Sender/Receiver
Protocol Requirements"
Since both the Sender AND Receiver requirements are specified in this
section concerning the *underlying protocol* the name change makes sense to
me. But then, why should a data format specification be saying anything
about the protocol to begin with?
-- NEW ISSUE: The group will need to decide what to do about Receivers that
wish to advertise features beyond the minimum capabilities string for each
profile. Per Graham Klyne's email, the use of composite CONNEG profile tags
to indicate support for the minimum PLUS incremental features (e.g.,
(| (& (profile=[uif-s,uif-f])
(dpi=[200,300,600,1200]) )
is invalid. See previous IPPFAX message
(http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ifx/0624.html) for more detail on this issue.
John Pulera
------------------------------------
John Pulera
jpulera@minolta-mil.com
Minolta Systems Laboratory
111 Innovation Dr., Ste 200
Irvine, CA 92612
(949)737-4520 x348
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 22:59:15 EST