John, Ira, and Don,
Another possibility is to encode the profile letter (s, f, j, c, l, m, ...)
either:
a) in application parameter itself or
b) with another parameter.
I'm not familiar enough with the tiff/fx registration procedures to know
whether introducing new parameters is allowed, or whether we can only add
values to the 'application' parameter.
For approach a, we would have:
image/tiff; application=uif-s
image/tiff; application=uif-f
image/tiff; application=uif-j
image/tiff; application=uif-c
image/tiff; application=uif-l
image/tiff; application=uif-m
and any additional profiles invented in the future.
For approach b, we would have:
image/tiff; application=uif; profile=s
image/tiff; application=uif; profile=f
image/tiff; application=uif; profile=j
image/tiff; application=uif; profile=c
image/tiff; application=uif; profile=l
image/tiff; application=uif; profile=m
and any additional profiles invented in the future.
By indicating the profile in the MIME Media Type, we more fully describe the
contents of a document.
Another advantage with either of these approaches is the existing IPP/1.1
"document-format-supported" Printer attribute would indicate which profiles
were supported (as well as the MIME Media Type) and we wouldn't need to add
the "uif-profiles-supported" (1setOf type2 keyword) Printer Description
attribute.
Comments?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 12:16
To: 'don@lexmark.com'; jpulera@minolta-mil.com
Cc: IPP-Fax Group
Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?
Hi Don and John,
I agree with you both that using the exising Internet Fax
values for 'application' is a bad idea.
What about equivalent 'uifbw' and 'uifcolor' (rather than
just 'uif') - the info from the 'faxbw' and 'faxcolor' is
of great value to renderers as well as intermediate systems.
Cheers,
- Ira
-----Original Message-----
From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:22 AM
To: jpulera@minolta-mil.com
Cc: IPP-Fax Group
Subject: Re: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?
John:
In regards to #1, I prefer image/tiff; application=uif for the very reasons
you
stated.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group *
* Chair, IEEE MSC *
* *
* Director, Alliances and Standards *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd C14/082-3 *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) *
**********************************************
"John Pulera" <jpulera%minolta-mil.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 06/07/2001
12:44:50 PM
Please respond to jpulera%minolta-mil.com@interlock.lexmark.com
To: "IPP-Fax Group" <ifx%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com>
cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone?
While revising the UIF spec, some issues have surfaced and it would be great
if we can generate some discussion on them:
1) The MIME type for UIF data.
From the IPPFAX teleconferences held on May 30 & June 6, there was
consensus to use "image/tiff; application=faxbw" and "image/tiff;
application=faxcolor". The primary argument for using these was that it is
the same MIME type used for Internet Fax, and so there would be less of a
conformance issue with an IPPFAX device serving as a gateway for Internet
Fax documents.
However...If we are going to make UIF a protocol-independent data
format (which was also agreed at the May 30 telecon), I do not think think
we should directly associate it with Internet Fax. Perhaps "image/tiff;
application=uif" would be a better compromise in that UIF would be made
independent of Internet Fax while existing TIFF readers can still do
something with the UIF data.
In addition, is it valid to use the same MIME type as Internet Fax
if the data requirements for UIF and TIFF-FX are not identical? (TIFF-FX is
more strict with resolutions and allowed image widths)
2) The use of the terms "Client" to mean the "Sender" and "Host" to mean the
"Receiver".
Is "Client" interchangeable with "Sender" and "Host" with "Receiver"?
Should we be using the more generic terms "Client" and "Host" instead of
"Sender" and "Receiver" in the UIF spec since the UIF spec is NOT
protocol-specific?
Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues?
Thanks,
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 16:39:40 EDT