Subject: IPP> Re: draft-mutz-http-attributes-02.txt

From: Neil Joffe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 09:25:06 -0700

At 07:01 PM 6/5/97 PDT, Andy Mutz wrote:
>I prefer not burdening all apps with 2 resolution numbers when most
>use square resolutions.
>
>Once way around this:  Specify "res" to mean horizontal resolution and
>add "res-vert" to indicate vertical resolution.

OK or res-x, res-y

so that we have pix-x, pix-y, res-x, res-y

>
>If only res is indicated, then a client could assume square pixels.
>
>I think this is sufficiently straightfoward.  Comment?

OK.

btw, there is a slightly different isssue with fax: pix-x will be specified,
but pix-y may not. In this case, you cannot assume pix-y and pix-x are
equal. Many fax machines are designed to scale the image if you send them
images longer than the page they are printing on.

>
>Andy
>
>
>> 
>> IPP, FAX, and HTTP need to know about resolution of the recipient
>> device; I don't think we need three different ways to deal with it.
>> 
>> Why not just be straightforward and specify resolution in two
>> directions as integers or rationals?
>> 
>> Larry
>> -- 
>> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>> 
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Andrew Mutz                          |   email:  [email-masked] 
>Internet Imaging Operation           |   Phone:  +1 408 447 4439
>Internet Technology Group            |   Page:   +1 800 607 9639
>11000 Wolfe Road 42UO                |   
>Cupertino, California, USA.          |   Radio:  KF6FUT
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Joffe                                     Email:  [email-masked]
Software Engineer                        Voice:  +1 (408) 527-7957
Voice Technology Engineering     Fax:     +1 (408) 527-3907
Cisco Systems
San Jose
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Andy Mutz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 9:35:42 PDT

> so that we have pix-x, pix-y, res-x, res-y

I'm satisfied either way; the point was to clarify which res
(x or y) to use for square resolutions to avoid having to 
negotiate over both.   This precedence seems clearer with res
and res-y than with res-x and res-y.  Comments?

> images longer than the page they are printing on.

This is an unrelated issue, but I understand.  Since each feature is
independently negotiated, there is no problem specifying available
values of pix-x and not specifying pix-y. 

Andy.