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.
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 (email@example.com) 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
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
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
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 18:53:12 EDT