These are all comments that should be included in the last call.
On Aug 22, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Manchala, Daniel <Daniel.Manchala at xerox.com> wrote:
> While these need not be construed as comments, the following questions / suggestions on IPP Finishings 2.0 would certainly help me (or perhaps others) to better understand / read the spec.
>> 1. Finishing Offset (line 248): Using what units is the distance measured from the Finishing Reference Edge (e.g., mm, in)? Can Printer vendors decide this for their own products?
> 2. Finishing Offset (line 248): Might be better to replace the semi-colon with a colon after the term “Finishing Offset”.
> 3. Section 3.2.3 Booklet Maker (lines 281-284): Would a typical example be folding several 11x17 sheets along the middle to form a 8.5x11 booklet stapled along the midline (saddle stitched)? Is this the same use case as the one shown in Section 3.2.11 Saddle Stitch (lines 313-316)?
> 4. Section 3.2.9 Laminate (lines 305-308): The term “checklist” makes me think of a list of items on a scratch paper (like a grocery list) and puzzles me as to why it should be laminated. Perhaps qualifying it as “airplane operating procedure checklist” or a “restaurant menu card” or a “nursing procedure card” would have helped me better visualize what it meant, and the importance of laminating such a document.
> 5. Section 3.2.16 Finishing Multiple Copies (lines 334-338): Is it true that in order to print multiple copies of a raster (only) document, a Client needs to send to the Printer (number of copies as specified by copy count * pages per copy) number of pages, whereas in case of a PDF document, the Client needs to send only one copy, and the Printer iterates over the single copy N number of times specified by copy count?
> 6. Section 3.4 Out of Scope – item 2 (line 351): It is hard for me to visualize how folds are made at 0, 90, 180, 270 degrees, and particularly its relation to Figure 1. I understand how cuts are made though.
> 7. Section 3.5 Design Requirements: Wouldn’t it be better to restart numbering (instead of starting at 5) which makes one think requirements 1-4 were in a previous spec? - until one realizes that the numbering continued from the previous section. A period at the end of item 10 (which would be item 5 if renumbered) would be better.
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair