[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 19:00:43 UTC 2013


Paul,

My $.02 CDN: what Ira said, but also my whole point was not to import what has been done in the other job tickets but to make sure what we did was not incompatible - we should be able to a) express what the simple enums expand to and b) allow for a /slightly/ better mapping to/from other job tickets for use on typical office equipment, without obvious incompatibilities.

For example, I don't want to see IPP support the complex origami that is possible with JDF's Fold Catalogue, but I *do* want to support the various 2, 3, and 4-panel folding patterns that are common when printing brochures and maps on office equipment.  These currently are covered by the new finishings values in the IPP Paid Printing Extensions, but the fold positions, directions, and edges are assumed/calculated by the printer based on the media used.  It would be nice to specify where these folds occur on the output media, e.g., to fold so that a "tab" is left exposed in a 3-fold design.

    +----+----+------+          +----+-+
    |    |    |      |          |    | |
    |    |    |      |          |    | |
    | A  | B  |     C|  ----->  | AB |C|
    |    |    |      |          |    | |
    |    |    |      |          |    | |
    +----+----+------+          +----+-+


On 2013-05-21, at 2:23 PM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> I understand the more limited scope of your proposal to look at
> PODI and friends.
> 
> But I simply don't want to expand any IPP existing attributes and
> finishing types unless they're needed and important for higher 
> fidelity PJT mappings from JDF or MSPS.  Even looking ahead
> to MODCA should be deferred.  Standard numbers and revision
> year numbers are cheap.
> 
> I prefer not to open that can of worms (endless world of finishing 
> type-specific option details) in the near term.
> 
> The objective is just to define the one finishing-template attribute
> (keyword type names) and the enclosed finishing type-specific
> members in an IPP 'collection' work, particular for IPP Implementors 
> Guide v2 to recommend best practice for finishings-col.
> 
> Narrower scope is better, I suggest.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Ira
> 
> 
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
> 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
> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at tykodi.com> wrote:
> Hi Ira,
> 
>  
> 
> What I was thinking about in mentioning the other organizations was to review the elements we want to map (stapling, folding, punching, trimming) to see what values the specifications from these organizations support for these limited items.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> /Paul
> 
> --
> 
> Paul Tykodi
> Principal Consultant
> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
> 
> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
> Mobile:  603-866-0712
> E-mail:  ptykodi at tykodi.com
> WWW:  http://www.tykodi.com
> 
> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:50 PM
> To: Paul Tykodi
> Cc: Michael Sweet; ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: Re: [IPP] RFC: Proposed errata for PWG 5100.3 (Production Printing)
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Looking at PODI et al would open endless possibilities.
> 
> I agree with Mike that defining the low-hanging fruit for finishing that 
> specifically map to the most commonly used JDF and MSPS finishing
> 
> should be our limited and practical scope.
> 
> BTW - the Open Printing JTAPI spec specifically chose a small subset
> 
> of finishing types to standardize in the JTAPI abstract Job model - these
> are already harmonized with JDF.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Ira
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
> 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
> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at tykodi.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
>  
> 
> For this particular specification, I think we should consult information from the UP³I and potentially PODi organizations as well.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> /Paul
> 
> --
> 
> Paul Tykodi
> Principal Consultant
> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
> 
> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
> Mobile:  603-866-0712
> E-mail:  ptykodi at tykodi.com
> WWW:  http://www.tykodi.com
> 
> From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael Sweet
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:45 AM
> To: ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: [IPP] RFC: Proposed errata for PWG 5100.3 (Production Printing)
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
> 
>  
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
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/20130521/61553813/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list