IFX Mail Archive: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meetin

IFX Mail Archive: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meetin

IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51

From: Hiroshi Tamura (tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:39:42 EDT

  • Next message: Wagner,William: "IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51"

    John,

    > I believe it would be better and faster to resolve the IP issues quickly and
    > publish TIFF-FX as a single revised document. The revised document should
    > restrict the use of the existing image/tiff MIME type and .tif (or .tiff)
    > file name extensions to profiles S and F, and assign a new MIME type and
    > file name extension for the profiles J, C, L, and M (perhaps image/tifx and
    > .tfx (or .tifx)). By restricting image/tiff to profiles S and F, TIFF-FX
    > keeps compatibility with TIFF-6. By allowing image/tiff and .tif (or .tiff)
    > for the S and F profiles, TIFF-FX reflects what exists in many deployed
    > TIFF-FX devices.
    >
    > Letís call this solution option 5. Itís a variant of options 1 and 4.

    Yes, a good idea. One document is better for all implementers, I think.
    But, how do we separate is the discussion issue.

    <snip>

    > If the document remains as one, we avoid spending the time to edit and gain
    > acceptance of the new documents. In addition, with a single document there
    > are more people to pressure Adobe and Xerox to agree quickly on the IP
    > issues.

    Right. We need to avoid spending time for our market.
    Thanks for your comment.

    Regards,

    --
    Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG
    E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:42:59 EDT