[IPP] RFC: Proposed errata for PWG 5100.3 (Production Printing)

[IPP] RFC: Proposed errata for PWG 5100.3 (Production Printing)

[IPP] RFC: Proposed errata for PWG 5100.3 (Production Printing)

Michael Sweet msweet at apple.com
Tue May 21 14:45:11 UTC 2013


All,

As discussed in last week's session, there is no easy migration from the finishings attribute (1setOf type2 enum) to the finishings-col attribute (1setOf collection).

The primary issue is that the finishing-template member attribute is defined as a name value and does not support well-known keyword values.  I propose that we amend the definition of the finishing-template member attribute and finishing-template-supported Printer attribute to include type2 keywords, e.g.:

    "finishings-col (1setOf collection)"
        "finishing-template (name(MAX) | type2 keyword)"  <--- NEW
        "stitching (collection)"
            "stitching-locations (1setOf integer(0:MAX))"
            "stitching-offset (integer(0:MAX))"
            "stitching-reference-edge (type2 keyword)"

    "finishing-template-supported (1setOf (name(MAX) | type2 keyword))"  <--- NEW
    "finishings-col-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)"
    "stitching-locations-supported (1setOf (integer(0:MAX) | rangeOfInteger(0:MAX)))"
    "stitching-offset-supported (1setOf (integer(0:MAX) | rangeOfInteger(0:MAX)))"
    "stitching-reference-edge-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)"

The keyword values would correspond to the finishings enum names (staple, punch, bale, etc.).

Longer term we should also probably extend the finishings-col Job Template attribute to include fold, punch, and trim member attributes, which would make use of the same kinds of values as as the current "stitching" member attribute (which IIRC handles bind, edge stitch, and staple, although that too could be made explicit), for example:

    "finishings-col (1setOf collection)"
        "fold (1setOf collection)" (list of folds)
            "fold-direction (type2 keyword)" (in/out or up/down)
            "fold-location (integer(0:MAX))"
            "fold-reference-edge (type2 keyword)"
        "punch (collection)"
            "punch-locations (1setOf integer(0:MAX))"
            "punch-offset (integer(0:MAX))"
            "punch-reference-edge (type2 keyword)"
        "trim (1setOf collection)" (list of cuts)
            "trim-location (1setOf integer(0:MAX))"
            "trim-reference-edge (type2 keyword)"

    "fold-direction-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)"
    "fold-location-supported (1setOf (integer(0:MAX) | rangeOfInteger(0:MAX)))"
    "fold-reference-edge-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)"

    "punch-locations-supported (1setOf (integer(0:MAX) | rangeOfInteger(0:MAX)))"
    "punch-offset-supported (1setOf (integer(0:MAX) | rangeOfInteger(0:MAX)))"
    "punch-reference-edge-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)"

    "trim-location-supported (1setOf (integer(0:MAX) | rangeOfInteger(0:MAX)))"
    "trim-reference-edge-supported (1setOf type2 keyword)"

That said, I think extending finishings-col needs to happen in a separate (small) spec, and we should look to other specs (e.g. JDF and MSPS) to make sure we aren't defining something completely out in left field.

Thoughts?

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


-- 
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/20130521/e6893e47/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list