IFX Mail Archive: Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx

IFX Mail Archive: Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx


From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 17:46:50 EDT

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx"

    I'm happy to stay and catch a late flight out or Saturday morning if
    necessary. It is true, however, that the majority will want to head out
    and get home. A 3pm end target is probably as good as it gets.
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    "Gail Songer" <gsonger@peerless.com>
    05/15/2002 02:08 PM
            To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
            cc: ifx@pwg.org
            Subject: Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx



    Main Topics:
         Goals for IPPFax. It would be great if the member companies can
    their Sales/Marketing for information.
         Discussion of possible required formats. (Do we know if Scott will be
              IPP (Proposal from Ron)

    I've heard in the past that people prefer to get out early on Friday. I'm
    game to staying later. What does everyone want to do?


    "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com> on 05/15/2002 12:12:13 PM

    To: "Gail Songer" <gsonger@peerless.com>
    cc: ifx@pwg.org

    Subject: Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx


    Seems the Adobe topic could be a long one. Can I assume this will be your
    main topic if you are still trying to wrap by 3pm?
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    "Gail Songer" <gsonger@peerless.com>
    Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org
    05/15/2002 10:08 AM

            To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
            cc: ifx@pwg.org
            Subject: Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx

    Hi Harry,

    It's probably obvious by now, but we will need our Friday in Portland.
    We'll try to get out around 3 so that people have a chance to make it home
    for the weekend.


    "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 05/14/2002 03:59:31 PM

    Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org

    To: "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>
    cc: ifx@pwg.org

    Subject: Re: FW: IFX> TIFFFx

    Consensus check is a good idea. Not sure we have all the same loud voices
    that built the previous picture. I'm not interested in interop with IFAX
    or PSTN Fax as a key goal and I think it has proven elusive in any event.
    I'm for settling on something that works.
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>
    Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org
    05/14/2002 02:13 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.


    -----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

    -----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


    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


    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
    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
    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
    c) Use PDF
    d) other (please specify)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 15 2002 - 17:47:04 EDT