IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> TIFFFx

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> TIFFFx

RE: IFX> TIFFFx

From: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 19:22:40 EDT

  • Next message: Gail Songer: "Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx"

    Lee,

    I agree with your statement. I believe that the issue was mentioned in
    Boston but there was no real discussion or agreement. The Portland meeting
    should review our requirements for IFX and then look at the alternatives to
    TIFF to see if any of these alternatives are consistent with those goals.

            Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:14 PM
    To: ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: FW: IFX> TIFFFx

    I don't think this made it out to the reflector before. My apologies if
    it's a repeat.

    lee

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Farrell, Lee
    Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:20 PM
    To: ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx

    I think Bill is raising an issue that is fairly core to the goals and
    purpose of IPP Fax. If we're open to changing this requirement, shouldn't
    we set out to agree on our (new?) priorities/requirements/goals -- before
    selecting a solution alternative?

    Or do most people feel that there is already general consensus on these
    things?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Wagner,William [mailto:wwagner@netsilicon.com]
    Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:38 AM
    To: Gail Songer; ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx

    Gail,

    I certainly would like to consider what Ron is drawing up. An "IPP
    Solution", based on the IPP protocol but guaranteeing certain minimum
    attributes (esp data formats) may be a good approach. I think restricting
    the format to PDF may be unnecessarily limiting.

    I have never been a strong proponent of requiring compatibility with other
    forms of FAX or IFAX. I think that even the inclusion of the term FAX in the
    initiative name is outdated. PSTN FAX and IPPFAX are very different in use,
    capabilities and market. IPP FAX does not and should not try to emulate FAX;
    it is a distinctly different document transfer capability intended for a
    distinctly different world.

    I think IFAX has suffered from trying to tie internet fax and PSTN fax; I
    don't see why we should bother tieing into IFAX. In general, the IFAX
    groups, which have been working hard on internetting fax and coming out
    with some ingenious if contorted solutions, do not recognize or appreciate
    the IPP approach. Tiff FX appeared to be convenient. But it still needed
    extensions and it has been plagued by intellectual property issues. I see no
    reason to "stick it out".

    Of course, just my personal opinion.

    Bill Wagner

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Gail Songer [mailto:gsonger@peerless.com]
    Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:09 PM
    To: ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: IFX> TIFFFx

    Hi,

    During the last meeting, we had a very long discussion regarding TIFF-FX,
    Adobe and IPPFax. We agreed that it was at least time to consider
    alternatives to TIFF-FX. We also wrote a note to Adobe explaining what we
    intended to do with TIFF-FX and asked for their comments. To date, we have
    not heard back from them.

    Ron Bergman volunteered to draw up a proposal providing an IPP solution to
    identify the compression schemes used in the job. He has indicated that he
    will have something ready for the Portland meeting. Another alternative
    proposed was to use PDF as the required PDL.

    I would like to get some feed back from the group. What do you think of
    the alternatives?
    a) Stick it out with TIFF-FX
    b) Use an IPP solution (or would prefer to wait until the proposal has been
    given)
    c) Use PDF
    d) other (please specify)

    Gail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 19:10:33 EDT