IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about 'image/tiff' IPP document format]

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about 'image/tiff' IPP document format]

RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about 'image/tiff' IPP document format]

Carl-Uno Manros (carl@manros.com)
Thu, 13 May 1999 20:31:46 -0700

This is all interesting stuff, but please let this be for now and let the
new QAULDOCS project sort this out. We are trying to put a lid on the
IPP/1.1 specs for now.

Carl-Uno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Hastings,
> Tom N
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 9:42 AM
> To: harryl@us.ibm.com; Larry Masinter
> Cc: don@lexmark.com; cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp@pwg.org; McIntyre,
> Lloyd
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP? [confusion about
> 'image/tiff' IPP document format]
>
>
> Unfortunately, the current mechanism in IPP for a Printer to list the
> document formats that it supports is to list the MIME types, possibly with
> parameters that have been registered with the MIME type.
>
> For the MIME type image/tiff there are only two parameters registered:
> faxbw and faxcolor. There has been debate what the meaning of
> 'image/tiff'
> without any parameters. Some say that without either parameter
> the document
> format supported is the 1994 TIFF spec that doesn't have tiff/fx
> (TIFFPLUS).
> Some say that in order to indicate that you support tiff/fx, you must add
> either the 'faxbw' or the 'faxcolor' parameter.
>
> Here is the Feb 1999 registration. I don't know whether it has been since
> clarified any more. Until it is, we decided it was best not to mention
> 'image/tiff' as one of the example mimeMediaType values in IPP Model
> document. We will clarify this as part of QUALDOCS.
>
> To: IANA@isi.edu
>
> Subject: Registration of new Application parameter values for
> image/tiff
>
> MIME media type name: image/tiff
>
> Optional parameters: Application
>
> New Value(s): faxbw, faxcolor
>
> Description of Use:
>
> faxbw - The "faxbw" application parameter is suitable for use by
> applications that can process one or more TIFF for facsimile profiles
> or subsets used for the encoding of black-and-white facsimile data.
> The definition of the use of this value is contained in Section 9 of
> this document (TIFFPLUS).
>
> Faxcolor - The "faxcolor" application parameter is suitable for use by
> applications that can process one or more TIFF for facsimile profiles
> or subsets that can be used for the encoding of black and white, AND
> color facsimile data. The definition of the use of this value is
> contained in Section 9 of this document (TIFFPLUS).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: harryl@us.ibm.com [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 12:28
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: don@lexmark.com; cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com; ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP?
>
>
>
>
> I don't think it is necessary to mandate support for a minimum
> format in ipp
> (the standards specification) - but rather in the implementations
> that want
> to
> described themselves as "i-fax" capable. IPP already has the ability to
> indicate
> PDL support. I don't believe there would be anything to prevent indicating
> support for TIFF-F or TIFF FX via IPP.
>
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> harryl@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com> on 05/12/99 08:28:03 AM
>
> To: don@lexmark.com, cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com
> cc: ipp@pwg.org (bcc: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM)
> Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - New Pronunciation of IPP?
>
>
>
>
>
> I think before you start e-printing or ipping things to each other,
> you need to face the small technical details that will
> get in the way:
>
> a) document format. Although IPP is a nice interoperable
> protocol, one person's IPP server won't necessarily do the
> right thing with another person's IPP client's documents
> unless there's a little more care played with
> printer-formats-supported. I think what you really
> need for guaranteed interoperability is:
> 1) a minimum format that everyone is guaranteed to understand
> (TIFF profile S, anyone?)
> 2) some better way of the sender determining recipient
> capabilities (printer-features using CONNEG syntax, anyone?)
>
> b) sender and recipient identification. Although IPP has some
> features that might be used for these, you won't have interoperability
> until you standardize on their use. You need:
> 1) sender identification. While the 'authentication'
> used for authorization to use the printer might serve
> as an identification, sometimes it doesn't. You need
> to clearly say which parts of IPP are supposed to be
> used for "who is this from", and encourage the use
> of this material on the cover sheet.
> 2) recipient identification. Maybe this is the "user name"?
> The problem is that with "printing" the "sender" is usually
> the same as the "recipient". You know, I "print" something
> by "e-print"ing it to myself. But I think IPP has only one
> user field, whereas if you're going to use it for
> communication, you need two.
>
> So, before going off into too many more flights of fancy about
> internet printing, could you focus a bit on the issues that
> were labelled "IPP2FAX" before?
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>
>
>
>
>