[IPP] Request for new "finishings" keywords for Swedish hole punch pattern

[IPP] Request for new "finishings" keywords for Swedish hole punch pattern

[IPP] Request for new "finishings" keywords for Swedish hole punch pattern

Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) smith.kennedy at hp.com
Mon Jul 11 15:56:20 UTC 2016


> On 2016-07-07, at 7:27 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Smith,
> 
>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> HP Inc. requests the addition of 4 "finishings" keywords to support the Swedish "Triohålning" de-facto hole punch standard, as described here:
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punch#Sweden <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punch#Sweden>
>> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hålslagsapparat#Svensk_trioh.C3.A5lning <https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5lslagsapparat#Svensk_trioh.C3.A5lning>
>> 
>> We propose the addition of 4 keywords:
>> 
>> "punch-triohalning-top"
>> "punch-triohalning-left"
>> "punch-triohalning-right"
>> "punch-triohalning-bottom"
>> 
>> Even though the "-top" and "-bottom" are likely not necessary for standard letter-type (i.e. A4) media sizes, it is conceivable that a user might want this punch pattern on the short edge of an A3 or larger media size, so that is why I'm suggesting we define these 4.
> 
> I have a few comments about this:
> 
> 1. "finishings" is an enum attribute, "finishing-template" is a keyword (or name) attribute.  I assume you want both registered?

That is correct - apologies for not being precise.  (And if we don't have anything in place currently to make sure that the set of enum values and keywords match, we probably ought to, since they are strongly related.)

> 
> 2. Keywords are supposed to be US English; looks like "trio binder" is the English equivalent of triohålning.
> 
> 3. We already have punch-quad-{bottom,left,right,top}, and there are numerous 4-hole punch patterns (four specifically listed on the linked page). In the past we have opted for the enum/keyword to specify an implementation-defined hole pattern, with "finishings-col" providing the explicit control, so I am not super happy about going down this road (I count 15 different hole patterns for 2-7 hole punching on the wikipedia page alone).

Let me preface by saying I would have preferred to only pursue a solution that uses finishings-col, but unfortunately there seem to be quite a few laggards in this space that still depend on "finishings".  When "finishings-col" is employed, you can give the "finishings-template" value any value you want, because it becomes simply an identifier to be used to look up a string out of the strings catalog.

> 
> 4. From a practical standpoint, will finishers needing this support arbitrary 4-hole punch patterns, or will this be specific to a finisher that is sold/marketed solely in Sweden and nearby countries? If the latter, it seems like keeping the current (generic) punch-quad-xxx is sufficient for "finishings", with "finishings-col" providing explicit intent.

I understand and sympathize with your worry about needless enum / keyword definitions.  But it struck me that the current keywords  definitions ("punch-quad-left") are really ambiguous as far as intent. Is that not a concern?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4956 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20160711/204eda29/attachment.p7s>


More information about the ipp mailing list