Tom,
Please accept my apology for the late response.
Please see below.
Lloyd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 3:50 PM
> To: Lloyd McIntyre (E-mail)
> Cc: IPP FAX DL (E-mail)
> Subject: More detail about the IPPFAX presentation to the Internet
> FAX WG at London IETF
>> Lloyd,
>> The PWG IPPFAX WG thanks you for presenting the IPPFAX slides to the
> Internet FAX WG at the London IETF meeting.
>> The Internet FAX WG minutes show the following about your presentation:
>> 5.4 PWG IPP Fax status report
>> Lloyd reported on behalf of the PWG IPP group. (see slides for a
> detailed
> description of documents and status). Is was made clear that the
> activity
> presetnte is carried on within the IEEE unbrella, and also that the
> IESG
> did not accepted this activity as a possible IETF one, answering
> that
> these activities were already covered by our wg. There was consensus
> from
> the wg that there must be a better coordination with these external
> efforts, in order to avoid any possible incomaptible products to be
> developed.
>> Can you elaborate on the kinds of incompatibility they are concerned
> about?
>> Is it about the IPPFAX protocol, about UIF, or about the MIME type and
> file extension?
[LM] The concern is w.r.t. UIF and MIME type. Should UIF contain
encoding parameter that are not consistent with those in the registered
TIFF-FX MIME type then it should be distinguished appropriately.
> Are there some things that we are doing to require more for our UIF S, F,
> J, C, L, M profiles that parallel TIFF/FX profiles that might cause a
> problem?
[LM] Mandatory 300 and 600 dpi support requirement is the only
possibility I see. It may be argued that 600 dpi is not supported in the
current TIFF-FX spec.
BTW - it is TIFF-FX rather than TIFF/FX.
> What about the one or two additional TIFF tags for UIF?
[LM] If these d tags add encoding or file requirements, which are
not comprehended within TIFF-FX, then this plays to the IFax WG's concerns.
IPPFax could consider defining a UIF profiling spec for TIFF-FX rather than
a UIF file format spec. This should sidestep issues of Adobe granting
license to the PWG/IEEE and IFax WG concerns of MIME type compatibility.
> Also we will want to follow the principles that the Internet FAX group
> agree to around the MIME media type and file extension for TIFF/FX. I.e.,
> for UIF, one of the following:
>> Use image/tiff with new application parameter if this is what TIFF/FX does
> Use the same new TIFF/FX mime type (if TIFF/FX uses a new MIME media
> type), but with new UIF parameter values
> Use a new MIME type (even if TIFF/FX uses a new MIME media type), to keep
> everything distinct.
>> Thanks,
> Tom