IPP> Revision of section 4.2.6 multiple-document-handling

IPP> Revision of section 4.2.6 multiple-document-handling

IPP> Revision of section 4.2.6 multiple-document-handling

Steve Zilles szilles at Adobe.COM
Fri Oct 24 22:05:19 EDT 1997


> From: Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>


> >[Note that in the last case, the internal conflict in the description
> >noted above was resolved by removing the apparently un-intented SHALL
> >NOT clause. 
> 
> 1. The SHALL NOT was introduced in the Sept 26 version when adding the
> entire sentence to the third value to make it like the second value.
> I agree that the NOT should be removed in the sentence:
> "The Printer SHALL NOT force each document copy to start on a new sheet."
> so that the third value has the same sentence as the second value.


I agree that dropping the NOT would solve the conflict and it is a stronger
statement to say, "The Printer SHALL force each copy of the
result of processing the data in a single document to start on a
new media sheet." than to say nothing at all.


>  > With this change, the last case becomes the same as the >first case
> with respect to ordering and media sheet generation, but >different
> with respect to finishing.]  2. I disagreed slightly with the
> characterization of the three values: 'single-document'
> 'separate-documents-uncollatted-copies'
> 'separate-documents-collated-copies' I believe that the last case
> becomes the same as the first case with respect to ordering of pages,
> but NOT media sheet generation, since the first case will put the
> first page of the next document on the back side of a sheet if an odd
> number of pages have been produced so far for the job, while the third
> case always force the next document or document copy on to a new
> sheet.  Perhaps you meant the "ordering of pages and the ordering of
> media sheet generation".


I think I was just getting tired when I wrote the text and was not very
careful. I had already observed that


>Finally, I do not
>understand the final case at all; it says "each file SHALL be treated as
>a single document for finishing operations. The Printer SHALL NOT force
>each document copy to start on a new sheet. There is no way if parts of
>two files are placed on opposite sides of the same sheet (because of the
>SHALL NOT) that they will be finished separately. 


So I (earlier in the evening) knew that the page placement was not the
same as case 1. What is the same as case 1 is that the ordering of the
sequences of media sheets, once created, is the same as case 1; namely,
a', b', a', b', ....


        Steve



More information about the Ipp mailing list