[IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

[IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

[IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

Michael Sweet msweet at msweet.org
Wed Aug 7 02:14:05 UTC 2013


I guess we are in violent agreement.  One comment below.

On 2013-08-06, at 12:54 PM, "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com> wrote:
> ...
> This is the difference between a Hardcopy Document and a Hardcopy Document /Object/. We need to define the latter and not the former.
> <PZ>I see no subclasses of Documents in the PWG Semantic Model or IPP.  Whether a document is added to a Job by value, by reference, or by reference to the output of the scanner subunit, it is still just a Document object. 

I am not suggesting a subclass of document.

We already categorize documents as "referenced" and "with attached document data". For hardcopy documents we would have a Document Object containing description attributes/elements that identify the source and properties of the hardcopy document.

I chose to call it a "Hardcopy Document Object" as opposed to a "Document Object with Associated Hardcopy Document Input Elements".  How the digital representation is stored and when exactly the document is scanned are, IMHO, implementation specific.

Michael Sweet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20130806/283bd24f/attachment.html>

More information about the ipp mailing list