Bill,
I wonder whether the "term" facsimile brings along with it that the sender
is starting with paper and is re-creating some thing with identical
appearance at the other end? If so, that sort of means scanning. But
IPPFAX (or whatever we want to call it), doesn't require the client to scan
anything. However, maybe your ("hardcopy or soft)" means that either the
sending document and/or the receiving document can be soft copy. Perhaps
this could be made clearer in our requirements. Otherwise, this statement
of requirements seem good to me.
Perhaps an additional requirement is that the sender is able to determine
the receiver's capabilities, although maybe that is a "how" to achieving
your requirements.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:wwagner@netsilicon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:30
To: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com; Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com; ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx
Lee more concisely expressed the gist of my comment. As a starting point, I
suggest that the intent of IFX is to provide for the secure, verifiable
internet transmission of information necessary to generate a precise
facsimile of an original document (hardcopy or soft) at one or more
authenticated destinations. There are associated functions related to
determining the limits of precision (resolution, color, size, media.) There
are associated functions dealing with notification and verification of
delivery. There is an intent to use the IPP protocol.
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:23 PM
To: Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com; ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx
Lee,
I agree with your statement. I believe that the issue was mentioned in
Boston but there was no real discussion or agreement. The Portland meeting
should review our requirements for IFX and then look at the alternatives to
TIFF to see if any of these alternatives are consistent with those goals.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:14 PM
To: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: FW: IFX> TIFFFx
I don't think this made it out to the reflector before. My apologies if
it's a repeat.
lee
-----Original Message-----
From: Farrell, Lee
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:20 PM
To: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx
I think Bill is raising an issue that is fairly core to the goals and
purpose of IPP Fax. If we're open to changing this requirement, shouldn't
we set out to agree on our (new?) priorities/requirements/goals -- before
selecting a solution alternative?
Or do most people feel that there is already general consensus on these
things?
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:wwagner@netsilicon.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:38 AM
To: Gail Songer; ifx@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IFX> TIFFFx
Gail,
I certainly would like to consider what Ron is drawing up. An "IPP
Solution", based on the IPP protocol but guaranteeing certain minimum
attributes (esp data formats) may be a good approach. I think restricting
the format to PDF may be unnecessarily limiting.
I have never been a strong proponent of requiring compatibility with other
forms of FAX or IFAX. I think that even the inclusion of the term FAX in the
initiative name is outdated. PSTN FAX and IPPFAX are very different in use,
capabilities and market. IPP FAX does not and should not try to emulate FAX;
it is a distinctly different document transfer capability intended for a
distinctly different world.
I think IFAX has suffered from trying to tie internet fax and PSTN fax; I
don't see why we should bother tieing into IFAX. In general, the IFAX
groups, which have been working hard on internetting fax and coming out
with some ingenious if contorted solutions, do not recognize or appreciate
the IPP approach. Tiff FX appeared to be convenient. But it still needed
extensions and it has been plagued by intellectual property issues. I see no
reason to "stick it out".
Of course, just my personal opinion.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Songer [mailto:gsonger@peerless.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 1:09 PM
To: ifx@pwg.org
Subject: IFX> TIFFFx
Hi,
During the last meeting, we had a very long discussion regarding TIFF-FX,
Adobe and IPPFax. We agreed that it was at least time to consider
alternatives to TIFF-FX. We also wrote a note to Adobe explaining what we
intended to do with TIFF-FX and asked for their comments. To date, we have
not heard back from them.
Ron Bergman volunteered to draw up a proposal providing an IPP solution to
identify the compression schemes used in the job. He has indicated that he
will have something ready for the Portland meeting. Another alternative
proposed was to use PDF as the required PDL.
I would like to get some feed back from the group. What do you think of
the alternatives?
a) Stick it out with TIFF-FX
b) Use an IPP solution (or would prefer to wait until the proposal has been
given)
c) Use PDF
d) other (please specify)
Gail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 20:06:35 EDT