[IPP] Epson Request for PWG/IPP Raster

[IPP] Epson Request for PWG/IPP Raster

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 18:55:51 UTC 2011


Hi Glen,

There is no specific duration for the document status phases.

Both the WG last call and PWG Last Call can't reasonably be
shortened.  The time consumed is often *after* one or the other
last call, while the editors update the document and the WG
reviews those changes.

The scope of a SINGLE prototype (not an interoperability test)
is the choice of the implementation.  But the PWG SC took a
conservative view with PDF/is (prototype every field) and the
IPP Fax WG followed through on that.  In that case, Rick Seeler
(Adobe) tested that the sample PDF/is documents could be
correctly displayed by Adobe Reader as well.

A PWG Raster prototype could be fairly easily based on the
existing open source code for CUPS, I suspect.

The interoperability tests (between vendors) normally are only
*after* the PWG Candidate Standard is approved and required
for advancement to full PWG Standard document status.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
  734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
  906-494-2434



On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Petrie, Glen <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>wrote:

>  While I understand your comments on fast tracking, is there a “specific”
> duration to each phase / process?  So, I did not mean to change the process
> but to encourage shortening it.
>
>
>
> Can you help me understand the “scope of a prototype”?  In this case, the
> scope of the technical content is very small but I still assume that the
> process steps can not be dropped.
>
>
>
> Having just a source provider of the PWG raster is not interoperability.  I
> personally do not know of a printer that can read CUPS raster xxx or one
> that could be modified to read a subset.  So is emulation of a printer ok?
> I also assume for interoperability, there must be two independent
> developments.
>
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:49 AM
> *To:* Petrie, Glen; Ira McDonald
> *Cc:* ipp at pwg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] Epson Request for PWG/IPP Raster
>
>
>
> Hi Glen,
>
> With respect to 'fast tracking' of PWG Raster spec, note
> that the status phases Initial/Interim/Protoype/Stable must
> occur, per PWG Process/3.0.
>
> Except for waiving the PWG Process/3.0 requirement
> for a PWG Last Call to span a PWG face-to-face, there
> is little the PWG Steering Committee can do to 'fast
> track' this spec.
>
> And during the Prototype phase an actual prototype of
> substantial amounts of the base spec must be performed,
> reported on, and reviewed by the IPP WG.
>
> For comparison, PDF/is had *every* required and
> optional field prototyped.  Wire formats need to be
> very stable before adopting them.
>
> I can't speak to Mike Sweet's editing priorities, but the
> main IPP Everywhere (profiles) and IPP JPS3 specs
> are high priority for their Cloud Imaging WG and MFD
> WG impacts.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
>
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> Christmas through April:
>   579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
>   734-944-0094
> May to Christmas:
>   PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
>   906-494-2434
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Petrie, Glen <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>
> wrote:
>
> Epson would like in endorse the IPP working group’s fast tracking of the
> PWG/IPP raster specification / standard.  Epson would like to further
> encourage and endorse the PWG Steering committee in approving a (very) fast
> tracking of the of PWG/IPP Raster specification / standard.
>
>
>
> Epson supports the currently proposed format of the raster format provided
> that the format is “streamable” in order to eliminate the need for printers
> to provide buffering of full pages.
>
>
>
> If the format has a REQUIRED color space, and Epson is not proposing that
> there should be a REQUIRED color space; then Epson would like to propose and
> support 24-bit sRGB
>
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>
>
>

-- 
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/ipp/attachments/20110208/86e51227/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list