I prefer the terms Sender and Receiver for the reasons Tom mentions, as long
as we define what we mean exactly by these terms in a "Terms Used" section.
I don't think we should use IPPFAX before the terms Sender or Receiver in
the UIF spec, as we are trying to keep UIF non-protocol-specific.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 2:27 PM
To: jpulera@minolta-mil.com; Ira at Xerox XR&T McDonald (E-mail)
Cc: IPP-Fax Group
Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client
vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]
Ira is suggesting IPPFAX Server, instead of IPPFAX Receiver or IPPFAX
Printer. (We're all in agreement *not* to use "host").
However, to me a Server can act as a Sender or a Receiver, so I like the
terms Sender and Receiver, because they are more clearly *roles* that hosts
and servers can play. The conformance requirements of Sender vs. Receiver
apply to the role.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 13:56
To: jpulera@minolta-mil.com
Cc: IPP-Fax Group
Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology:
Client vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]
On the second issue, I believe the original issue from the minutes was
whether to use the IPP/1.1 terminology for IPPFAX Sender and IPPFAX
Receiver, which would be IPPFAX Client and IPPFAX Printer, not IPPFAX Host.
To me the term Host is much too vague. To me a Host could be a sender or a
receiver.
So I'm quite opposed to using the term "Host". Whether to continue
using the IPPFAX terms Sender and Receiver or go back to the IPP/1.1 terms
of Client and Printer is harder to decide. If we go back to the IPP Client
and Printer terms we would make it clear that the term Printer means the
software entity that accepts requests and returns responses, as in IPP, and
need not actually have any hardware associated at all. The advantage of the
term Receiver, is that no hardware is suggested by the name.
However, the problem with using the term "receiver" is that it affects
the names of some of the attributes ("receiver" vs. "printer"). Also we are
stuck with the IPP/1.1 terminology of Printer Description attributes and the
'printer-description' attribute group name used as a keyword in the
Get-Printer-Attributes request.
The attribute names affected are:
5.1 ippfax-sending-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
Description attribute 9
5.2 ippfax-receiving-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
Description attribute 9
5.3 ippfax-sender-identity (name(255)) operation/Job
Description attribute 10
5.4 ippfax-receiver-identity (name(255)) Printer Description
attribute 10
We should still keep the terms Sending User and Receiving User, but we
could change the terms Sender to Client and Receiver to Printer.
Then the attributes would be named:
5.1 ippfax-sending-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
Description attribute 9
5.2 ippfax-receiving-user-identity (text(MAX)) operation/Job
Description attribute 9
5.3 ippfax-client-identity (name(255)) operation/Job
Description attribute 10
5.4 ippfax-printer-identity (name(255)) Printer Description
attribute 10
Comments?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: John Pulera [mailto:jpulera@minolta-mil.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 09:45
To: IPP-Fax Group
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 : Tue Jun 19 2001 - 10:28:18 EDT