Well, I guess I'll be quiet now except to say it would be a good time to describe the attributes and constraints on all three types of Documents. :)
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com<mailto:Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
800 Phillips Rd.
Webster NY, 14580-9701
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at msweet.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:14 PM
To: Zehler, Peter
Cc: IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document
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<mailto: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...