IFX Mail Archive: IFX> Notes on the UIF part of the IPPFAX t

IFX Mail Archive: IFX> Notes on the UIF part of the IPPFAX t

IFX> Notes on the UIF part of the IPPFAX telecon, Friday, Aug 17

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 18:51:58 EDT

  • Next message: John Pulera: "IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51"

    Here are the notes from the UIF part of the IPPFAX 8/17 telecon. I'm
    separating them into two parts, since this part I'm also copying to the IETF
    FAX mailing list as well. The notes on the IFX part are of less interest,
    so I won't send them to the IETF FAX mailing list.

    Agenda:
    10-11 AM - Address the Internet FAX WG concerns about UIF and the Adobe IPR
    issues with TIFF/FX.
    11-12 AM - continue with IFX issues 43, 45-47.

    Attendees: John Pulera (Minolta Labs), Marty Joel (Netreon), Ira McDonald
    (High North), Rob Buckley (Xerox), Peter Zehler (Xerox), Tom Hastings
    (Xerox), Gail Songer (Netreon).

    Summary of the UIF part:

    We decided not to make any changes to the UIF document, such as two
    documents (one with UIF Profile S and F, and the other with UIF Profiles S,
    F, J, C, L, and M) different MIME types, MIME type parameters, etc. until it
    becomes clearer what the Internet FAX group is going to do about TIFF/FX.
    Same for the file name extension. We don't want to go in a different
    direction. As we understand it, the final decision will be made on the
    Internet FAX (ietf-fax@img.org) mailing list.

    We will ask Lloyd McIntyre on the mailing list for more detail about the
    Internet FAX WG concerns about UIF compatibility. [Done - see his response
    on 8/20].

    Details:

    We discussed the Internet FAX concern about UIF compatibility with TIFF/FX.
    The first draft minutes of the Internet FAX WG meeting at the IETF meeting
    in London contained:

      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.

    Lloyd was on vacation, so he was not present to give more detail. Tom
    Hastings will send him a request for more detail about the IPPFAX
    Presentation and feedback. It wasn't clear whether the concern was for
    compatibility with TIFF/FX products, TIFF-6 products, and/or TIFF-6 plus
    Adobe Technical Note 2 (similar to TIFF/FX Profile C) that Photoshop
    consumes.

    It also wasn't clear exactly what compatibility concerns were for:
    compatibility between generators and consumers, i.e., interoperability
    between vendors of one of the formats or between consumers that consume
    TIFF-6, TIFF=6 plus Adobe Technical Note 2, or TIFF/FX.

    Rob Buckley, one of the authors of TIFF/FX, was able to give some insight.
    John Pulera pointed out that TIFF readers MUST ignore TIFF tags that they do
    not understand. Thus TIFF is an extensible framework.

    We discussed the fact that UIF Profile S requires 600 dpi, as well as 200
    and 300 dpi. So UIF Profile S requires more resolution than TIFF/FX Profile
    S. TIFF/FX allows additional resolutions. ITU FAX allows 600, 800, and
    1200 as options. UIF Profile S does not place any constraints on additional
    resolutions, same as TIFF-6. Rob pointed out that most modern consumers of
    TIFF have a general processor and so are able to accept a wide variety of
    resolutions, and process the image to one of the native resolutions that the
    imaging device produces.

    Rob speculated that the compatibility concerns may also be about other
    things, such as different color spaces, such as ITULAB Color Space (10),
    ICCLAB (9), and CIELAB (8).

    We also talked about MIME type and file name extension. We see from the
    Internet FAX minutes, that the application parameter on the 'image/tiff'
    MIME type has not been recognized by legacy TIFF consumers. However, the
    Internet FAX WG is trying to decide between using the 'image/tiff' for
    Profile S and F, and a new 'image/xxx' MIME type for the other profiles.
    Similarly the file name extension of .tif, versus a new one. Can/should UIF
    Profile C and F use the .tif file name extension, or always use a new
    extension, such as .uif? What about UIF Profiles J, C, M, and L? Should it
    use the same extension as TIFF, TIFF-FX, UIF Profile S and F, or be a
    different file extension? We will wait to see what the Internet FAX WG
    decides and consult with them on what we should so.

    Please send any comments about these notes to the mailing list.

    Thanks,
    Tom Hastings



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 18:53:12 EDT