IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> TIFFFx [IPPFAX requirements]

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> TIFFFx [IPPFAX requirements]

RE: IFX> TIFFFx [IPPFAX requirements]

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 20:06:20 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "IFX> Strawman Questions for Adobe"


    I wonder whether the "term" facsimile brings along with it that the sender
    is starting with paper and is re-creating some thing with identical
    appearance at the other end? If so, that sort of means scanning. But
    IPPFAX (or whatever we want to call it), doesn't require the client to scan
    anything. However, maybe your ("hardcopy or soft)" means that either the
    sending document and/or the receiving document can be soft copy. Perhaps
    this could be made clearer in our requirements. Otherwise, this statement
    of requirements seem good to me.

    Perhaps an additional requirement is that the sender is able to determine
    the receiver's capabilities, although maybe that is a "how" to achieving
    your requirements.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Wagner,William [mailto:wwagner@netsilicon.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:30
    To: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com; Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com; ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx

    Lee more concisely expressed the gist of my comment. As a starting point, I
    suggest that the intent of IFX is to provide for the secure, verifiable
    internet transmission of information necessary to generate a precise
    facsimile of an original document (hardcopy or soft) at one or more
    authenticated destinations. There are associated functions related to
    determining the limits of precision (resolution, color, size, media.) There
    are associated functions dealing with notification and verification of
    delivery. There is an intent to use the IPP protocol.

    William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
    Director of Technology
    Imaging Division
    NETsilicon, Inc.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:23 PM
    To: Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com; ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx


    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.


    -----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.


    -----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 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
    c) Use PDF
    d) other (please specify)


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 20:06:35 EDT