IFX Mail Archive: IFX> UIF spec has been updated: 'uif-spec-

IFX Mail Archive: IFX> UIF spec has been updated: 'uif-spec-

IFX> UIF spec has been updated: 'uif-spec-09'

From: John Pulera (jpulera@minolta-mil.com)
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 23:01:23 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: IFX> Using CONNEG with IPPFAX"

    I've updated the UIF spec to contain modifications suggested by Tom Hastings
    and Robert Buckley since the last IPP-FAX face-to-face.

    changes from version 0.8 to 0.9 noted:


    Here are the major changes to the document:

    (1) Moved the definition of the newly defined UIF-specific TIFF-FX
    extensions to Appendix B of the document. Note that Appendix B will be
    removed once the TIFF-FX Extension 2 Internet Draft is available.

    (2) Removed "UIF Profile S" nomenclature, as the IPPFax working group and
    Lloyd McIntyre decided it would be best to use Profile S the way it is
    described in TIFF-FX.

    (3) Renamed Section 4 from "Sender Requirements" to "Sender/Receiver
    Protocol Requirements"
    Since both the Sender AND Receiver requirements are specified in this
    section concerning the *underlying protocol* the name change makes sense to
    me. But then, why should a data format specification be saying anything
    about the protocol to begin with?

    -- NEW ISSUE: The group will need to decide what to do about Receivers that
    wish to advertise features beyond the minimum capabilities string for each
    profile. Per Graham Klyne's email, the use of composite CONNEG profile tags
    to indicate support for the minimum PLUS incremental features (e.g.,

            (| (& (profile=[uif-s,uif-f])
                  (dpi=[200,300,600,1200]) )

    is invalid. See previous IPPFAX message
    (http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ifx/0624.html) for more detail on this issue.

    John Pulera

    John Pulera
    Minolta Systems Laboratory
    111 Innovation Dr., Ste 200
    Irvine, CA 92612
    (949)737-4520 x348

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 22:59:15 EST