I agree with John Pulera's "solution option 5". One document is best.
Canon Information Systems
110 Innovation Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 856-7163 - voice
(949) 856-7510 - fax
From: Hiroshi Tamura [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:40 AM
Cc: Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Subject: IFX> RE: notes from the ietf FAX wg meeting at IETF 51
> I believe it would be better and faster to resolve the IP issues quickly
> publish TIFF-FX as a single revised document. The revised document
> 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
> .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
> for the S and F profiles, TIFF-FX reflects what exists in many deployed
> TIFF-FX devices.
> Let's call this solution option 5. It's 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.
> If the document remains as one, we avoid spending the time to edit and
> 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
Right. We need to avoid spending time for our market.
Thanks for your comment.
-- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 24 2001 - 16:25:30 EDT