IFX Mail Archive: IFX> Second IPP fax meeting

IFX Mail Archive: IFX> Second IPP fax meeting

IFX> Second IPP fax meeting

From: pmoore@peerless.com
Date: Mon Nov 20 2000 - 11:55:39 EST

  • Next message: Bergman, Ron: "IFX> Minutes from IPP FAX Meeting (Boston)"

    Summary of major items from the second IPP Fax (Qualdocs) meeting. This was held
    in Boston just following the IOC / MFPA meeting on 10/26.

    To be honest the turnout was a little disappointing - we had hoped that many
    people would stay over from the IOC and that this would make up for the absense
    of the IPP people who had been at the 3rd bake-off the week before - didnt
    happen.

    I think the most important thing that came up is something that Lee Farrell said
    (Thanks Lee). He pointed out that we still do not have a common understanding of
    what it is we are trying to do; different people have different ideas. I would
    therefore ask that people send me usage scenarios, ideas for overall
    requirements (quality, compatability, speed, etc), non-goals, etc.

    This somewhat took the wind out of the sails of the technical requirements
    documents we discussed. But there were still some important areas of agreement.

    1. The proposal to split the data format and transport was broadly accepted -
    the name Univeral Image Format was liked for the data format and the negotiaion
    mechanism.

    2. THe issue of drawing surface size, scaling and squishing was discussed at
    length. It was clear that we wanted to break away from the constraints of the
    classic FAX/TIFF world that specifies the drawing surface size in advance (and
    forces A4 and letter to be the same logical size). We all felt it was more
    useful to allow the receiver to indicate its drawing surface). It was also
    considered useful to allow the sender to specify how it wanted mismatched image
    sizes to be dealt with - i.e. whether or not the receiver should scale or if it
    should crop and/or leave whitespace.

    3. Everybody seem to think that we may as well stick with CEILAB for color.

    4. We discussed conneg. Somebody with actual implementation experience pointed
    out that it was very unwieldy - you get a combinatory explosion in most
    non-trivial cases. Still nobody has come up with a better idea.

    For a more detailed record see Ron's email with the minutes.

    Paul Moore



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 12:00:00 EST