Re: TIFF-FX: technical changes since RFC 2301
Dave Crocker <[email protected]> Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:32:30 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.fax |
|---|---|
| Organization | Brandenburg InternetWorking |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Folks, Thursday, December 19, 2002, 11:04:42 AM, you wrote: ned> What we have here is two MIME types: image/tiff and image/tiff-fx. The former ned> is defined for use with two profiles of TIFF, S and F. ... ned> I therefore think it is entirely appropriate to say that image/tiff-fx SHOULD ned> NOT be used to describe material that is known to conform to the more ned> specific image/tiff type. ahh. overlapping coverage. yes. always a problem. (sorry I missed that this was the point.) Forgive another bit of confusion: I've lost track of where this recommendation is going to be put. Presumably there is a good reason to have tiff-fx contain this redundant capability. So, presumably, there are times when it IS a good thing to use? When is that? And can we make the recommendation be clear about the circumstance in which -fx use of the redundant profiles is discouraged, versus when it is ok? d/ -- Dave <mailto:[email protected]> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850