To all:
I checked Lloyd's suggestions.
I think some of corrections are reasonable because of ambiguity.
Others are not discussed at the meeting. They are considerable options
for TIFF-FX. This should be done from now on.
Claudio and I cannot make our mintues that is completely satisfactory
to both of you. Therefore, please accept it even if there are something
that you have complaint.
I repeat my policy.
> Regarding IETF-FAX WG minutes, it seems that we need to modify it.
> I would like to say, "easy to understand" and "simple".
Anyway, until Claudio comes back, please wait.
The next, I would like to introduce the background.
Some slides at the meeting:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- TIFF extension beyond basic black-and-white induces incompatibility
with existing base tiff applications
Should we retreat to only base set black-and-white, retaining full
compatibility with existing tiff base or continue to embrace the defined
path that introduces new encodings for both black-and-white and color that
are consistent with ITU-T fax encodings?
1 If decision is to retain extended encodings then compatibility must be
addressed, two options are:
Different MIME type and file extension
or
Different MIME type and file extension together with a new Adobe
issued TIFF version that encompass the TIFF-FX encodings
2 If decision is to retreat to only base black-and-white then we must:
Delete all TIFF-FX profiles other than S and F with constraints as follows:
encodings MH, MR and MMR resolutions of 200x100 and 200x200 paper size A4/letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just descriptions. Some of the above may not be appropriate.
I said:
> Anyway, I would like to confirm our conclusion at the meeting.
>
> 1. Safe subset for Draft Standard Consideration
> 2. Final agreement will be made in this ML.
But, we do not decide precisely what is safe subset.
Lloyd said:
> p - One of the four options below should be selected for the
> specification(s) that will move forward through the standards tack process:
> 1. Full TIFF-FX: - retain the currently defined TIFF-FX draft without
> modification of the encoding set and define both a new MIME type (e.g.
> image/tifffx or image/tifx) and a new file extension (e.g. .tifx or .tfx).
> The new MIME type and extension circumvents interoperability issues with
> TIFF 6.0.
> Advantages: i) Retention of color and high quality encodings, ii) no
> disruption of IFax products under deployment, and iii) a single integrated
> specification.
> Disadvantages: i) Licensing issues to be resolved, and ii)
> unpredictable approval schedule due to license resolution.
>
> 2. Interoperable TIFF-FX: - use the new interoperability document to
> generate a TIFF-FX subset that is image/tiff interoperable, retaining the
> current image/tiff MIME type.
> Advantages: i) No licensing issues, and ii) predictable approval
> schedule.
> Disadvantages: i) Loss of color and high quality encodings, ii)
> disruption of IFax products under deployment.
>
> 3. Interoperable and non-Interoperable TIFF-FX: - use the new
> interoperability document to generate two subsets, a) Interoperable TIFF-FX,
> as per #2, and b) non-Interoperable TIFF-FX, which is composed of the
> remaining encoding subset. As with Full TIFF-FX, define both a new MIME type
> and a new file extension for the non-Interoperable TIFF-FX.
> Advantages: i) Base-level black-and-white has no licensing issues,
> ii) predictable base-level approval schedule iii) retention of color and
> high quality encodings, iv) minimal disruption of IFax products under
> deployment.
> Disadvantages: i) Licensing issues to be resolved for color & high
> quality, ii) unpredictable color & high quality approval schedule, iii) two
> disjoined specifications.
>
> 4. Interoperable and Full TIFF-FX: - this is a combination of options 1
> and 2.
> Advantages: i) Base-level black-and-white has no licensing issues,
> ii) predictable base-level approval schedule iii) retention of color and
> high quality encodings, iv) no disruption of IFax products under deployment,
> and v) base-level specification may be phased out as viewers advance.
> Disadvantages: i) Licensing issues to be resolved for color & high
> quality, ii) unpredictable color & high quality approval schedule.
These are just ideas. Some of them may NOT be appropriate.
Also, there may be other options.
Anyway, we must have our conclusion, considering there are RFC2301 products
on the market.
-- Hiroshi Tamura, Co-chair of IETF-FAX WG E-mail: tamura@toda.ricoh.co.jp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 19 2001 - 18:51:30 EDT