I think the goal of CDD is admirable, but I'm not sure a "clean room" implementation of such a device description format is the best approach.
We've got MIBs that describe printer capabilities, and other ways to determine device capabilities - but if one of the central goals is to use such a description format to generate an appropriate user interface for printing, then you need something more than a list of static device capabilities.
I would say that you need something similar to CDD, but combined with a subject/object/predicate dialect as well (something like XACML or RDF supports; RDF might be a better comparison).
You might want to combine static capabilities and predicates, with realtime status of the device as well.
The subject/object/predicate capability would allow the user interface to automatically check that subtle combinations of selected options do not violate what I like to call the "device business rules", which are a set of predicates or rules for using particular options on the device.
Also, there are existing efforts to define a job ticket, not sure if I would add to this list unless the existing efforts are on the wrong track.
On the whole, I think there are quite a few on the distribution list that appreciate the goals of CDD, but it's quite a task to field something that takes into account all the knowledge that the printing/imaging industry has accumulated. It's not impossible, but I would probably approach the problem using a more expressive textual dialect than is currently described by CDD.
On Jan 27, 2013, at 9:38 PM, K.D. Lucas wrote:
> Hello Cloud Print Aficionados,
>> I wanted to inform you that the Google Cloud Print team is proposing a new capabilities format that will allow us to take advantage of semantic options, something we're calling Cloud Device Description (CDD) format, and can be used from printers to a host of other devices that may be used with our service.
>> This is our rough draft of our proposal. We are proposing this capabilities format in order to provide a more uniform experience for our Cloud Print users, as correctly parsing various PPD files is challenging and ultimately not feasible.
>> Since I know this group has thought about Cloud Printing for quite some time, and has significant experience with the issues around Cloud Printing, we welcome any feedback or comments you might have. I've attached the specification as a PDF file.
>> I won't be around to make your next face-to-face meeting, but I've been reading some of the emails regarding this meeting.
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean. <GCP20_CapabilitiesFormat.pdf>_______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...