attachment

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4926.2500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Looking at the dates, it looks to me that some of Harry's email to the [printing-jobticket] list just got un-stuck in some email server: these are over a month old.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>bt</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner@NetSilicon.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:28 AM To: Harry Lewis; TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) Cc: IPP@pwg.org; printing-driver@freestandards.org; printing-jobticket@freestandards.org; Zehler, Peter Subject: RE: [printing-jobticket] RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution </DIV> <DIV>It is quite a surprise to see this discussion still going on. When the idea of two varaiables was brought up in Portland, it seemed quite reasonable. At least with the implementations I am aware  of, the techniques for quality improvement (e.g., increased pseudo-resolution) are different with  the techniques for marker saving  (bias  voltage adjustment, sparse writing in solid  areas). Further, although  there is interaction in the effect upon the output, the  user  motivation in selecting   quality level is more likely to be speed  while the motivation for marker  saving  is cost. As is suggested, each marketing group will  put is own spin on these variables, but I   do think  that having two variables makes sense.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bill Wagner</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:05 PM To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org; printing-jobticket@freestandards.org; Zehler, Peter Subject: [printing-jobticket] RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution </DIV> >My main question with TonerSaving/InkSaving/MarkerSaving is how this is any different than PrintQuality(High|Normal|Draft) To answer this question, straightforward, there are implementations where you can select High|Normal|Draft independently from "Saver".  Administrators may want to configure policy that "Saving" must always be on yet still allow the choice of High|Normal|Draft, within that context. >PrintQuality=High & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say "print in high quality, and waste toner/ink for no good reason I think people would expect:  PQ=High|Saving=Off to result in the BEST possible quality.  PQ=High|Saving=On to result in the best possible quality while still saving marker (toner, ink ...)  PQ=Draft|Saving=Off to result in the FASTEST possible printing  PQ=Draft|Saving=On to result in the fastest possible printing with legibility that may not stand up to close scrutiny because marker (toner, ink...) has been used sparingly. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="40%">"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <bobt@hp.com> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org 07/14/2003 02:36 PM <TD width="59%"> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right>To</DIV> <TD vAlign=top>printing-driver@freestandards.org, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com> <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right>cc</DIV> <TD vAlign=top>"IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right>Subject</DIV> <TD vAlign=top>RE: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> My main question with TonerSaving/InkSaving/MarkerSaving is how this is any different than PrintQuality(High|Normal|Draft).  We as well have nifty algorithms for saving "marker" without impacting quality - but I don't know why we'd ever want to turn it "off" seperately from the notion of PQ/performance/economy tradeoff (which I maintain is what PrintQuality actually is).  The semantics of this as a separate attribute seem somewhat odd to me - i.e., PrintQuality=High & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say "print in high quality, and waste toner/ink for no good reason", and PrintQuality=Draft & MarkerSaving=False would seem to say "print in poor quality, but waste tone/ink anyway".  IMHO, a "separate" TonerSaving mode is really a vendor-specific extension of PrintQuality, which as Ira noted as already supported (though they are supposed to be IANA-registered, which I'm guessing most vendors have not bothered to do).   thanks,   bt -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:49 AM To: Zehler, Peter Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org; printing-jobticket@freestandards.org; Zehler, Peter Subject: [printing-driver] RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution My concern is that "save toner" is probably the most concrete concept compared to "Good, Better, Best" or "Text, Image, Graphics". The later has efficient application only in special cases (some of which may be very significant, like printing photo's). Otherwise, people stare at their mixed object document and wonder. I feel "save toner" should be explicit. We went from a flat set of descriptors to a pairing.. perhaps we should really go to a matrix (although I don't like the perceived complexity) Good - Better - Best Text - Text+Graphics - Graphics - Image TonerSaving ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="27%">"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com> 07/11/2003 04:54 AM <TD width="72%"> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width="13%"> <DIV align=right>To</DIV> <TD vAlign=top width="86%">Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com> <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right>cc</DIV> <TD vAlign=top>"IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>, printing-driver@freestandards.org, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right>Subject</DIV> <TD vAlign=top>RE: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="49%"> <TD width="50%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Harry, We felt that there are many different attributes involved in heuristics for saving toner and printing fast.  Some of those are "resolution", "media" and aspects of the document content.  We felt the requirements were met by keeping the existing "print-quality" values and augmenting them with hints on how to process the document content to achieve 'draft' 'normal' and 'high'.  The assumption is that draft is fastest and uses the least toner. Pete   Peter Zehler XEROX Xerox Innovation Group Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com Voice:    (585) 265-8755 FAX:      (585) 422-7961 US Mail: Peter Zehler         Xerox Corp.       800 Phillips Rd.       M/S 128-25E       Webster NY, 14580-9701 -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:26 PM To: Zehler, Peter Cc: IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org); printing-driver@freestandards.org; printing-jobticket@freestandards.org Subject: Re: IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution   > We finally agreed that the two values 'save-toner' and 'speed' are implied by the "print-quality".  Since they were not required, they were removed. I think this warrants further examination. I have known toner saving methods that do a very good job of preserving print quality. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="27%">"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org 07/10/2003 01:41 PM <TD width="72%"> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width="13%"> <DIV align=right>To</DIV> <TD vAlign=top width="86%">"IPP Discussion List (IPP@pwg.org)" <IPP@pwg.org>, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org, printing-driver@freestandards.org <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right>cc</DIV> <TD vAlign=top>  <TR> <TD> <DIV align=right>Subject</DIV> <TD vAlign=top>IPP> Print Quality Issue resolution</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>   <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="61%">  <TD width="38%"> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> All, During the PWG/FSG meeting in Portland we had a discussion about the IPP "print-quality" attribute and FSG's desire to add two new values, 'economy' and 'fine', where 'economy' is lower than 'draft' and 'fine' is higher than 'high'. The FSG further proposed the addition of a new attribute, called "print-optimize", that would augment "print-quality" with values of 'image', 'photo', 'text', 'text-and-image', 'save-toner' and 'speed'. With regard to 'economy' and 'fine', we agreed that 'economy' would map to "print-quality"='draft' and 'fine' to "print-quality"='high'.  There may be end user visible features that map to multiple attributes.  We leave it to specific print domains to model these higher level aggregate features.  When appropriate we will add needed elements to the Semantic Model. There was a lot of push back on "print-optimize".  The main concern was that "print-optimize" contained a mixed bag of items.  The two main categories were content metadata and rendering hints.  We finally agreed that the two values 'save-toner' and 'speed' are implied by the "print-quality".  Since they were not required, they were removed.  The remaining values are needed to direct the type of optimization/processing that will be performed on the content.  It does not necessarily mean the value describes the content.  To clarify this we changed the attribute name to "print-content-optimize".  Finally the value 'image' seemed the same as 'photo'.  The name for this was changed to 'graphic'. As a result the following attribute will be added to the JobX specification in it next revision.    print-content-optimize (type2 keyword)       This attribute refines the value specified by the print-quality       attribute.       The standard keyword values are:          'graphic': optimize for graphic clarity          'photo': optimize for photo clarity          'text': optimize for text clarity          'text-and-graphic': optimize for both text and graphic clarity Peter Zehler XEROX Xerox Innovation Group Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com Voice:    (585) 265-8755 FAX:      (585) 422-7961 US Mail: Peter Zehler         Xerox Corp.         800 Phillips Rd.         M/S 128-25E         Webster NY, 14580-9701 </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>