IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?

RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?

From: John Pulera (jpulera@minolta-mil.com)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2001 - 16:31:22 EDT

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "Re: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?"

    Hi Ira,

    1) The MIME type for UIF data.
    E.g., TIFF-FX profiles have fixed requirements on resolutions, whereas UIF
    allows *ANY* resolutions to be used beyond the required ones as long as it
    is supported on the Client and advertised by the Server. Is it not possible
    that existing and deployed readers and filters may have a problem with UIF
    data containing image widths or resolutions it does not anticipate?

    2) "Sender" vs. "Client" and "Receiver" vs. "Host" naming convention
    Point taken, thanks. I will replace "Sender" with "Client" and "Receiver"
    with "Server".

    Thanks,

    John Pulera

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ifx@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ifx@pwg.org]On Behalf Of McDonald,
    Ira
    Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:42 PM
    To: 'jpulera@minolta-mil.com'; IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?

    Hi John,

    1) The MIME type for UIF data.
    You raise an interesting question about using the
    "image/tiff; application=[faxbw|faxcolor]" for UIF data, since in
    some cases UIF is more or less stringent than the corresponding
    TIFF-FX named profile. But the reason for using the SAME existing
    MIME type is much more important than just Internet Fax gateways.
    Everywhere that the UIF data is stored in a file on a repository and
    tagged with the existing MIME type all EXISTING and DEPLOYED readers
    and filters will work correctly with the data. Even a new keyword
    value for the 'application' parameter will prevent interworking.

    2) Replace "Sender" with "Client" and "Receiver" with "Host"
    As Carl Kugler just pointed out EVERY internet connected device
    is properly termed a host. Please replace "Receiver" with "Server".

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: John Pulera [mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]
    Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 12:45 PM
    To: IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?

    While revising the UIF spec, some issues have surfaced and it would be great
    if we can generate some discussion on them:

    1) The MIME type for UIF data.
            From the IPPFAX teleconferences held on May 30 & June 6, there was
    consensus to use "image/tiff; application=faxbw" and "image/tiff;
    application=faxcolor". The primary argument for using these was that it is
    the same MIME type used for Internet Fax, and so there would be less of a
    conformance issue with an IPPFAX device serving as a gateway for Internet
    Fax documents.
            However...If we are going to make UIF a protocol-independent data
    format (which was also agreed at the May 30 telecon), I do not think think
    we should directly associate it with Internet Fax. Perhaps "image/tiff;
    application=uif" would be a better compromise in that UIF would be made
    independent of Internet Fax while existing TIFF readers can still do
    something with the UIF data.
            In addition, is it valid to use the same MIME type as Internet Fax
    if the data requirements for UIF and TIFF-FX are not identical? (TIFF-FX is
    more strict with resolutions and allowed image widths)

    2) The use of the terms "Client" to mean the "Sender" and "Host" to mean the
    "Receiver".
        Is "Client" interchangeable with "Sender" and "Host" with "Receiver"?
    Should we be using the more generic terms "Client" and "Host" instead of
    "Sender" and "Receiver" in the UIF spec since the UIF spec is NOT
    protocol-specific?

    Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues?

    Thanks,

    John



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 16:30:24 EDT