Relative to names...
These names are not for end user consumption so the main requirement is that
name components be clearly defined and consistently used. Selecting
intuitively meaningful names is nice, but not always possible. In IPP, for
example, "printer" is used for attributes of a "logical" printer, which may
be a device that never receives a piece of paper. Indeed, anticipating the
use of the IPP protocol for functions other than printing, it may have been
nicer to use more general terms.
There appears to be an intent to give IPP-FAX some compatibility with I-FAX,
presumably meaning T.37 and its variations. The following definition is
from that document.
T: 4.1.1 receiver: User agent capable of receiving or retrieving
Email.
BM__msocom_3T: 4.1.2 sender: User agent capable of sending Email.
BM__msocom_5T: 4.1.3 device: Terminal containing a receiver and/or a
sender.
One may argue the adequacy and applicability of these definitions to
IPP-FAX, but I suggest that "receiver" and "sender" are more consistent
with existing usage by "FAX people". Acknowledging Ira's observation, the
definitions may be"
receiver: User agent capable of receiving an IPP-FAX document transmission.
BM__msocom_3sender: User agent capable of sending an IPP-FAX document
transmission.
BM__msocom_5device: Terminal containing a receiver and/or a sender.
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 7:27 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N; 'jpulera@minolta-mil.com'
Cc: 'IPP-Fax Group'
Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client
vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]
Hi Tom,
I vastly prefer 'printer-uif-capabilities'. I don't like unscoped Printer
object attributes
like 'uif-capabilities'.
Cheers,
- Ira
PS - What I don't like about Sender and Receiver (I finally realized) is
that in protocol specs
they refer to messages - but here in IPP Fax you mean JOB Sender and JOB
Receiver.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 6:02 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N; jpulera@minolta-mil.com; McDonald, Ira
Cc: IPP-Fax Group
Subject: RE: IFX> some UIF issues...thoughts anyone? [terminology: Client
vs. Sender and Host vs. Receiver]
An additional attribute name affected by whether we continue to use the term
IPPFAX Receiver or change it to IPPFAX Printer, is the "uif-conneg"
(octetString32k) Printer Description attribute that we agreed on the May 30
telecon to rename to: "uif-receiver-capabilities" (octetString32k).
If we decide to change the terminology from IPPFAX Receiver to IPPFAX
Printer, we should change this Printer Description attribute name (again) to
one of:
"uif-printer-capabilities", or "printer-uif-capabilities", or just
"uif-capabilities".
Comments?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 14:27
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 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389244> ippfax-sending-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.2 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389245> ippfax-receiving-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.3 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389246> ippfax-sender-identity
(name(255)) operation/Job Description attribute 10
5.4 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389247> 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 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389244> ippfax-sending-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.2 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389245> ippfax-receiving-user-identity
(text(MAX)) operation/Job Description attribute 9
5.3 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389246> ippfax-client-identity
(name(255)) operation/Job Description attribute 10
5.4 <outbind://6/#_Toc515389247> 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 - 10:47:53 EDT