Hi,
I agree with Mike - these should all be treated as Xerox comments
on the IPP Finishings 2.0 spec.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://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 Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> Daniel,
>> 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel.
> > _______________________________________________
> > ipp mailing list
> > ipp at pwg.org> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140823/9270278b/attachment.html>