On Aug 10, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Zehler, Peter wrote:
>> While updating the PWG Semantic Model and adding some missing MustHonor attributes I came across a bit of an issue. I was adding MustHonor to the elements directly under DocumentProcessing. When I got to elements like CoverBack and MediaCol I noticed that some of the contained elements are also directly under DocumentProcessing (e.g. Media, MediaType). It seems rather inconsistent to control fidelity for a subset of a collection’s members.
>> The issues comes down to which elements can be decorated with MustHonor and what limitations on attribute names are made for the job-mandatory-elements.
I did some reading this morning; section 3.1.2 of PWG 5100.7 has this to say about member attributes:
The values of the “job-mandatory-attributes” attribute are the keyword attribute names that identify Job Template attributes; for example, ‘job-hold-until’, ‘job-finishings’ (see section 220.127.116.11), ‘copies’ and ‘media’. In order to identify a member attribute of a collection attribute, the keyword names of both the collection attribute and the member attribute are given separated by a period (.) character. For example, to make the “media” attribute of the “cover- front” collection attribute mandatory, supply the keyword value: ‘cover-front.media’.
So it seems that the current IPP definition does, in fact, allow a client to make only certain member attributes mandatory in a collection. Thus if you specified "media-col" by itself then all member attributes in the collection are required while "media-col.media-size" would only make the size a mandatory element.
> My opinion is that it MustHonor should be placed on every processing element and any job template attribute can be used in job-mandatory-element. I would expect that fidelity would work similar to documents inheriting job level attributes in multi-document jobs. The “MustHonor” attribute at a node in the tree (e.g., MediaCol) applies to all subordinate nodes (e.g., MediaTooth) unless explicitly overridden. The same semantics would apply for job-mandatory-elements.
I believe that is ultimately what the current IPP definition says, now that I've re-read it.
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...