[Cloud] RE: [MFD] Call for action and Minutes of 18 Feb Cloud WG call

[Cloud] RE: [MFD] Call for action and Minutes of 18 Feb Cloud WG call

[Cloud] RE: [MFD] Call for action and Minutes of 18 Feb Cloud WG call

William A Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Tue Feb 19 22:59:18 UTC 2013


Pete,

 

Yes,  the samples in Appendixes F &G should  be helpful. By my
understanding,  the Google specification presents the format for the ticket
and capabilities, but does not define a full set of elements and element
values to be supported. What Glen was working on was a subset (and he came
up with two) of the compete SM elements/values that represents our idea of
what  support might  be appropriate in, for example, an enterprise situation
(and a set  somewhat less daunting than the full SM model).

 

Kelly, it would help a lot if you could indicate  the most effective format
for your people in using our information to have the Google Capabilities
Format use semantics for capabilities  and values compatible with the
industry semantic model.

 

Many Thanks,

 

Bill Wagner

 

From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler at xerox.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:32 PM
To: William A Wagner; cloud at pwg.org
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] Call for action and Minutes of 18 Feb Cloud WG call

 

Bill,

Perhaps you can mention appendices F & G to Google since they contain a JSON
mapping of a simple ticket and capability.  Another approach would be to
create an XML document instance containing just the features that Google
mentioned in their specification.  XML SPY can generate that easily.  The
XML file can then be edited to be a bit more realistic.  Then XML SPY can
create a JSON document from the XML document.  I don't know if there is a
tool around to convert JSON to Protobuf but I suspect there is one around.
Another alternative would be to edit the document to provide the Protobuf
encoding of the PWG semantics for the feature in the specification.

Pete

 

Peter Zehler

Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701 

 

 

From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of William
A Wagner
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:58 PM
To: cloud at pwg.org
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: [MFD] Call for action and Minutes of 18 Feb Cloud WG call

 

The minutes of the 18 February Cloud WG conference call are posted at:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/minutes/cloud-concall-minutes-20130218.pdf

 

Note that there were some important and time critical items discussed,
particularly relating to PWG response to the two Cloud Imaging Service
specifications provided by Google.  Google has given the PWG the opportunity
to comment on and potentially contribute to these specifications in a way
that may allow us to both make optimum use of the established imaging
semantics  and to provide our customers with consistent imaging capabilities
appropriate to their needs. It is strongly suggested that we should take
full advantage of this opportunity.

 

The Google draft specifications are posted at:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/GCP20_CapabilitiesFormat.pdf 

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/PrivetCloudDeviceLocalDiscoveryAPIProt
ocol-0001.pdf

 

Comments on these specifications, best presented to this mail  list, are
encouraged. In addition:

1.       The PWG Job Ticket and Printer Capabilities standard will be sent
to Google with a request that this be accepted as an alternate to the PPD
and MSPS (XPS) structures

2.       Recognizing that the PWG Job Ticket and Printer Capabilities
standard is extremely broad in scope, at our request Glen Petrie has
generated a table identifying the elements and element value sets
appropriate for three levels of Users. This is posted at
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/pwg.pjt.level.config.for.PWG.h  (an MS
Word version may be available shortly).

a.       Since most of these elements/values are optional, it is understood
that these three subsets are suggested sets that should be understood by
Cloud Print Services in accepting capabilities information from printers and
providing that information to Clients, and should be accepted in Print Job
Tickets. Cloud Print Services may, of course,  recognize a larger, smaller,
or different subset. 

b.      The membership is requested to review this table and voice any
strong criticisms, objections or preferences promptly, because it is our
intent to pass this information on to Google promptly.

 

It is also requested that the Feb 18 minutes be reviewed  and comments sent
to this list because several questions arose, particularly with the issue of
Print-by-reference, that have a bearing the current work in progress.

 

Many thanks,

 

Bill Wagner, PWG Cloud WG vice-chair.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 


-- 
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...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20130219/704c4bc5/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the cloud mailing list