I support Paul's idea of separating document format (FAX-specific
water-marking, legal requirements between parties, etc.) from
discover/transport (which would be common between FAX. Then the latter
could be used alone for intranet transfer within an organization where the
FAX water marks and other legal stuff would get in the way. In order to
make sure that there isn't a divergence between the two documents, the
former document will require the latter, while the latter does NOT require
the former. The former will NOT duplicate anything in the latter document.
Ok?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: McIntyre, Lloyd [mailto:Lloyd.McIntyre@pahv.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 10:11
To: 'gleclair@agentz.com'; Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM; pmoore@peerless.com
Cc: ifx@pwg.org; Buckley, Robert R
Subject: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
I can understand a desire to split the spec in order to appease both camps.
I am, however, concerned about the inevitable divergences that result from
splitting.
Might it be reasonable to retain one specification and make watermarking an
application space dependent requirement? Documents distributed with the
desired to realize fax legal status, would include the necessary watermark
provisions.
Integration of IFax with the copier and scanner distribution applications is
essential - we must strive for a universal messaging environment.
Lloyd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gleclair@agentz.com [mailto:gleclair@agentz.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 2:34 PM
> To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM; pmoore@peerless.com
> Cc: ifx@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
>
>
> Sorry to have not been in attendance.
>
> I would agree with the split proposed by Paul.
>
> Other WG efforts may benefit from the 'negotiated image format'
> effort independent of the FAX issues.
>
> Regards,
> Greg LeClair
> P1394.3 PPDT Chair
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ifx@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ifx@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry
> > Lewis/Boulder/IBM
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 12:47 PM
> > To: pmoore@peerless.com
> > Cc: ifx@pwg.org
> > Subject: Re: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
> >
> >
> > Life always gets interesting when an essential "must have" overlaps
> > directly with "no way José"!
> >
> > The motivation for "QualDocs" apparently embraced both sets of
> > requirements - the "IPP Fax" AND broader "driverless"
> printing goals. I
> > support Paul's recommendation to split the specification as
> an effective
> > way to address the (powerful but unique) semantics of IPP-FAX (legal
> > issues etc.) Still, I feel both efforts are essentially
> follow-on to IPP
> > and need to be remain coordinated to prevent rampant divergence.
> >
> >
> > Harry Lewis
> > IBM Printing Systems
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > pmoore@peerless.com
> > Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org
> > 09/25/2000 11:47 AM
> >
> >
> > To: ifx@pwg.org
> > cc:
> > Subject: IFX> Thoughts after first meeting
> >
> >
> > Firstly, thanks to all who attended the initial IPP Fax (as
> I must now
> > learn to
> > call it) meeting in Chicago.
> >
> > The passionate (did I hear heated, even) debate was a good
> sign; people
> > think
> > this is important and we all have strong ideas about what should be
> > delivered.
> > Ron Bergman has posted detailed minutes for the meeting (thanks
> > Ron) but I
> > will
> > repeat here the major points.
> >
> > 1. The name was changed from Qualdocs to IPP Fax. Most people felt
> > Qualdocs was
> > not clear and did not translate well for non USA attendees.
> >
> > 2. The charter was updated and accepted. No major changes
> were made to the
> > charter except to specifically state the we were building
> on IPP. Tee
> > modified
> > version is on the web site http://pwg.org/qualdocs/index.html.
> >
> > 3. We thrashed out what we meant by 'high bars' low bars'
> 'negotiated' ,
> > etc.
> > with regards to image parameters.
> >
> > What did become apparent was a split in people's views
> about how this
> > technology
> > is to be used. The FAX attendees saw this as a 100% FAX
> product - whereas
> > the
> > broader imaging attendees (printers, copiers, scanners) saw wider
> > usefullness in
> > having a standardised, negotiated image format (as well as Faxing).
> >
> > The wider uses include things like copier to copier copying, network
> > scanning,
> > ad-hoc printing, etc.
> >
> > Specifically the debate came down to whether or not the transmitted
> > documents
> > needed to be watermarked or stamped in some way. For the
> pure fax people
> > this
> > was a must, for the wider uses this would be a disaster. I
> am sure there
> > will be
> > other divisions too. I had crafted the charter to allow for the
> > wider uses
> > as
> > well as the fax case but no form of word crafting can get round this
> > fundamental
> > divide. The solution I propose is that we split the spec
> into two pieces.
> >
> > A) A common agreed image format with some form of negotiation /
> > discovery.
> > This
> > can be used regardless of whether or not the transport is
> doing 'IPP fax'
> > or
> > not. We will end up specifying the rules associated with
> saying that you
> > support
> > 'application/tiff-fx' as a document format.
> >
> > B) A set of enhancements to IPP to get 100% into Faxing on
> the internet.
> > Includes identity exchange, security, watermarking, etc. We
> would make A a
> > pre-requisiste
> >
> > Actually splitting might well speed things up (divide and conquer)
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
> > Paul Moore
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 25 2000 - 19:06:03 EDT