IFX Mail Archive: Re: Adobe's response.......RE: IFX> TIFFFx

IFX Mail Archive: Re: Adobe's response.......RE: IFX> TIFFFx

Re: Adobe's response.......RE: IFX> TIFFFx

From: Scott Foshee (sfoshee@adobe.com)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 18:44:40 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "Re: IFX> Adobe attendance at the June Face to Face"

    Hi Harry,

    I can not speak for Adobe on this point. My understanding is that we
    would offer a license on Adobe's PDF on the same terms as those we
    offer TC130 in their development of PDF/X. One of our reps to the
    Portland meeting is tasked with sorting this out for IEEE.

    tx....Scott

    At 4:19 PM -0600 5/13/02, Harry Lewis wrote:
    >Scott, thanks for getting back to us. Are you saying Adobe would have no
    >objection (licensing or otherwise) to the IEEE ISTO PWG basing IPP FAX on
    >PDF? Are we talking explicitly PDF/X-3 (a pre-press data interchange
    >subset), another subset (t.b.d.?) or full blown PDF?
    >----------------------------------------------
    >Harry Lewis
    >IBM Printing Systems
    >----------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Scott Foshee <sfoshee@adobe.com>
    >05/13/2002 10:47 AM
    >
    >
    > To: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, Harry
    >Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
    >ifx@pwg.org
    > cc:
    > Subject: Adobe's response.......RE: IFX> TIFFFx
    >
    >
    >
    >Hi everyone,
    >
    >Sorry it took a while to get back to you. As you might expect, I
    >needed to perform some internal coordination.
    >
    >1. Adobe strongly supports a PDF based solution to your problem.
    >This is a proven path to standardization. ISO TC130 has based
    >prepress standards on PDF. Others are in the works.
    >
    >2. Adobe will not be able to provide the IEEE a license to use TIFF
    >that would be sufficient to base IEEE standards on the IETF's TIFF FX
    >specification. Adobe continues to maintain the position that the
    >IETF's use of Adobe TIFF is out of scope.
    >
    >3. Adobe would be interested in trying to attend an upcoming meeting
    >to provide a tutorial on PDF and discuss how it might be applicable
    >to your problem.
    >
    >
    >Please let me know your thoughts on this.
    >
    >tx...Scott
    >
    >
    >At 2:10 PM -0700 5/10/02, McDonald, Ira wrote:
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>I support PDF (as the single REQUIRED or even RECOMMENDED format).
    >>
    >>I'm interested in Ron's IPP-based proposal, but observe that just
    >>saying the client (sender) can always ask what the printer (receiver)
    >>supports in document formats does _not_ get the interoperability that
    >>comes from a REQUIRED (to implement, not to use) format like PDF.
    >>
    >>I suggested that we shift to PDF last year and I still think it's a
    >>good idea, although the apparent convenience of TIFFfx (simple for
    >>IFax and PSTN Fax interworking) has long diverted us. The serious
    >>intellectual property problems with TIFFfx don't seem to be going
    >>away in the forseeable future.
    >>
    >>Cheers,
    >>- Ira McDonald
    >> High North Inc
    >>
    >>-----Original Message-----
    >>From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    >>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:38 PM
    >>To: ifx@pwg.org
    >>Subject: Re: IFX> TIFFFx
    >>
    >>
    >>I would have no problem with PDF. Unless there is very strong support
    >>shown for that on the reflector, however, I am also interested in Ron's
    >>IPP proposal.
    >>----------------------------------------------
    >>Harry Lewis
    >>IBM Printing Systems
    >>----------------------------------------------
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>"Gail Songer" <gsonger@peerless.com>
    >>Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org
    >>05/09/2002 11:08 AM
    >>
    >>
    >> To: ifx@pwg.org
    >> cc:
    >> 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 Jun 04 2002 - 18:46:57 EDT