IPP> REQ - ISSUE - Add a requirement that printing files

IPP> REQ - ISSUE - Add a requirement that printing files

IPP> REQ - ISSUE - Add a requirement that printing files

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Mar 10 20:07:24 EST 1997

At 15:01 03/10/97 PST, Don Wright wrote:
>I have a real problem with this because 99.99% of the printing
>done today does not provide this kind a functionality.  Late
>binding is a concept that exists in none of the major operating
>systems and only in certain packages like Dazel.  Additionally,
>while the protocol may support this type of function, it is not
>in our area to tell application writers what functions are to be
>exposed to the user.  

I agree (with you and Bob).  What I was trying to suggest was a
requirement for our requirements document that our IPP protocol would

                            We can define a model and a protocol
>mapping that is neutral as to the source of the job but beyond
>that it is really up to the implementors of the user interface,
>the print server and the printer as to whether the things you
>ask for are implemented or every possible.  

I agree.

>I really think this is more "fat" being added to IPP.  As we
>discussed briefly on last week's conference call, this is all
>becoming way to heavy.  We really need to start thinking about
>a real minimal implementation requirement with functionality
>like the Microsoft proposal with (I hate to say this so you IPDS
>guys cover your ears) "towers" of functionality that can be
>negotiated between the submitter and the server.  We have got
>to cut this down to what is really necessary and focus on getting
>that done and implemented ASAP!!!

I agree with this as well.  So I'm not proposing adding more stuff
(except the page-select that was deleted recently, but is something that
you can do from current applications and that you can do with .PDF PDL
today.  So I don't want to add anything else (except to add back what
we had in our original proposal).

What stuff would you like to see removed from our current draft?


>To: ipp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
>cc:  (bcc: Don Wright)
>From: hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (Tom Hastings) @ SMTP
>Date: 03/10/97 11:55:44 AM
>Subject: IPP> REQ - ISSUE - Add a requirement that printing files have same  
>capabilites as printing from an application
>One of the requirements that we should add relates the functionality that
>a user has available over a file or document that has already been produced
>(usually be a different user) as compared with the functionality that
>a user has when printing from an application that generates the PDL on
>the fly (using the platform's GDI and printer driver).
>The web has shifted the printing paradigm from mainly printing from current
>running applications to a more balanced approach between two printing
>paradigms: printing from the application and printing from a previously
>produced document or file.
>We need to be striving to provide the same functionality to the end-user
>for both printing paradigms with IPP.
>So I suggest adding a requirement something like:
>  IPP shall provide the same functionality to the end-user for print
>  time choices of stored documents as the end-user has for printing
>  directly from an application.
>  For example, the user can choose number of copies, two-sided, stapling,
>  number-up, and page ranges, etc. whether printing from the application 
>  that has the entire document or printing from a file or document that 
>  has been stored on the web or in a document repository.

More information about the Ipp mailing list