Subject: Re: son of X-Face:

From: [email-masked] (Dick Keene [Sun Denver Federal SE])
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:22:29 MDT

Why not drop the faces stuff all together.  With the new Multimedia
	email standards comming out one could simply include there 
	face as a regular multimedia inclusion.

	Richard Keene
	Disclaimer -- The above does not represent the views of Sun Microsystems

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:55:19 -0600 (CDT)

> 	Disclaimer -- The above does not represent the views of Sun Microsystems

Good idea.  I wholeheartedly support this idea.  However, the faces project
should be redefined to create software which displays/plays sounds/
retrieves faces for those not in headers/ etc.

How can we get a show of hands on this???  Should we start a WWW page, and
have people leave group annotations or what?  Should everyone just mail
in a vote?  Is there anyway to decide on stuff like this?  Perhaps we could
have a NCSA "collage" conference??  What say you people??  

Internet Relay Chat???  Not all people want to build that I suppose?

Perhaps an e-mail voting filter? 
 
-- 
Matthew V. Hughes - MN Supercomputer Institute  Graphics Support Coordinator
Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.                      Ph: (612) 626-1765
1200 Washington Avenue South  [email-masked] [email-masked]   WWWeb home:
Minneapolis, MN 55415          <http://i5.msi.umn.edu/WWW/People/hughes.html>

---

From: Jamie Zawinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 14:36:31 PDT

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> However, the faces project should be redefined to create software which
> displays/plays sounds/ retrieves faces for those not in headers/ etc.

For face image data, there are at least three different issues:

 - the underlying format of the face data (i.e., xpm)
 - how it is compressed and encoded for transmission (i.e., what goes in
   the X-Face header)
 - where it is actually stored (X-Face, X-Image, a message annotation...)

and then after all that

 - what features the display program has

The first three are appropriate for an RFC (or two).  The last is not.
I think it's important to keep all four as distinct as possible.

I think that playing sounds and retrieving faces from a database count as
features of the application.  There doesn't need to be much agreement on the
details of that; someone just needs to go an implement it.  It can be fixed
later.  But when you're talking about data formats that lots of people are
going to be generating, you pretty much need to get it right the first time.

	-- Jamie