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: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Mon Jun 11 2001 - 15:16:19 EDT

  • Next message: Simon Lee: "IFX> We are Manufacturer and Exporter of Hi-Fi Loudspeaker Manufacturer and Exporter"

    Hi Don and John,

    I agree with you both that using the exising Internet Fax
    values for 'application' is a bad idea.

    What about equivalent 'uifbw' and 'uifcolor' (rather than
    just 'uif') - the info from the 'faxbw' and 'faxcolor' is
    of great value to renderers as well as intermediate systems.

    - Ira

    -----Original Message-----
    From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
    Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:22 AM
    To: jpulera@minolta-mil.com
    Cc: IPP-Fax Group
    Subject: Re: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?


    In regards to #1, I prefer image/tiff; application=uif for the very reasons

    * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
    * Chair, Printer Working Group *
    * Chair, IEEE MSC *
    * *
    * Director, Alliances and Standards *
    * Lexmark International *
    * 740 New Circle Rd C14/082-3 *
    * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
    * 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) *

    "John Pulera" <jpulera%minolta-mil.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 06/07/2001
    12:44:50 PM

    Please respond to jpulera%minolta-mil.com@interlock.lexmark.com

    To: "IPP-Fax Group" <ifx%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com>
    cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
    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
        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

    Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 11 2001 - 15:20:51 EDT