Hi Harry,
I can not speak for Adobe on this point. My understanding is that we
would offer a license on Adobe's PDF on the same terms as those we
offer TC130 in their development of PDF/X. One of our reps to the
Portland meeting is tasked with sorting this out for IEEE.
tx....Scott
At 4:19 PM -0600 5/13/02, Harry Lewis wrote:
>Scott, thanks for getting back to us. Are you saying Adobe would have no
>objection (licensing or otherwise) to the IEEE ISTO PWG basing IPP FAX on
>PDF? Are we talking explicitly PDF/X-3 (a pre-press data interchange
>subset), another subset (t.b.d.?) or full blown PDF?
>----------------------------------------------
>Harry Lewis
>IBM Printing Systems
>----------------------------------------------
>>>>>Scott Foshee <sfoshee at adobe.com>
>05/13/2002 10:47 AM
>>> To: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, Harry
>Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS,
>ifx at pwg.org> cc:
> Subject: Adobe's response.......RE: IFX> TIFFFx
>>>>Hi everyone,
>>Sorry it took a while to get back to you. As you might expect, I
>needed to perform some internal coordination.
>>1. Adobe strongly supports a PDF based solution to your problem.
>This is a proven path to standardization. ISO TC130 has based
>prepress standards on PDF. Others are in the works.
>>2. Adobe will not be able to provide the IEEE a license to use TIFF
>that would be sufficient to base IEEE standards on the IETF's TIFF FX
>specification. Adobe continues to maintain the position that the
>IETF's use of Adobe TIFF is out of scope.
>>3. Adobe would be interested in trying to attend an upcoming meeting
>to provide a tutorial on PDF and discuss how it might be applicable
>to your problem.
>>>Please let me know your thoughts on this.
>>tx...Scott
>>>At 2:10 PM -0700 5/10/02, McDonald, Ira wrote:
>>Hi,
>>>>I support PDF (as the single REQUIRED or even RECOMMENDED format).
>>>>I'm interested in Ron's IPP-based proposal, but observe that just
>>saying the client (sender) can always ask what the printer (receiver)
>>supports in document formats does _not_ get the interoperability that
>>comes from a REQUIRED (to implement, not to use) format like PDF.
>>>>I suggested that we shift to PDF last year and I still think it's a
>>good idea, although the apparent convenience of TIFFfx (simple for
>>IFax and PSTN Fax interworking) has long diverted us. The serious
>>intellectual property problems with TIFFfx don't seem to be going
>>away in the forseeable future.
>>>>Cheers,
>>- Ira McDonald
>> High North Inc
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:38 PM
>>To: ifx at pwg.org>>Subject: Re: IFX> TIFFFx
>>>>>>I would have no problem with PDF. Unless there is very strong support
>>shown for that on the reflector, however, I am also interested in Ron's
>>IPP proposal.
>>----------------------------------------------
>>Harry Lewis
>>IBM Printing Systems
>>----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>"Gail Songer" <gsonger at peerless.com>
>>Sent by: owner-ifx at pwg.org>>05/09/2002 11:08 AM
>>>>>> To: ifx at pwg.org>> cc:
>> Subject: IFX> TIFFFx
>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>During the last meeting, we had a very long discussion regarding TIFF-FX,
>>Adobe and IPPFax. We agreed that it was at least time to consider
>>alternatives to TIFF-FX. We also wrote a note to Adobe explaining what we
>>intended to do with TIFF-FX and asked for their comments. To date, we
>>have
>>not heard back from them.
>>>>Ron Bergman volunteered to draw up a proposal providing an IPP solution
>to
>>identify the compression schemes used in the job. He has indicated that
>>he
>>will have something ready for the Portland meeting. Another alternative
>>proposed was to use PDF as the required PDL.
>>>>I would like to get some feed back from the group. What do you think of
>>the alternatives?
>>a) Stick it out with TIFF-FX
>>b) Use an IPP solution (or would prefer to wait until the proposal has
> >been
>>given)
>>c) Use PDF
>>d) other (please specify)
>>>>Gail