Conceptually there is no reason a printer could not support a draft mode for multiple resolutions (and this is in fact the case in CUPS/Mac OS X), so preventing both from being specified will do a disservice to the user and printer/driver.
Quality != Resolution. They may be related, and there may in fact be constraints that cause a particular combination to conflict, but they are not mutually exclusive and express separate intent. The IPP/2.0 recommendation to prefer Quality over Resolution when there is a conflict is a pragmatic approach to automatic conflict resolution.
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Petrie, Glen wrote:
> Mike, Pete, (All)
>> So, should the PJT not specify both but rather specify one or the other? I know that for the PJT, that “quality” is required while “resolution” is optional. So if “quality” is required and always wins; what is the value or need for “resolution”? The spec’s do not have a value of “unknown” or “other” for “quality”; so, the Print Service will not ever use the “resolution” information and, in fact, the “resolution” data simply adds confusion.
>> However, if “quality” and “resolution” were made either-or-but-not-both, then a client could specify either without a “winner”. The other option is add the values “unknown” or “other” to “quality” which directs the Print Service to use “resolution”.
>>> From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: Petrie, Glen
> Cc: mfd at pwg.org> Subject: Re: [MFD] Question on Resolution Versus Qaulity
>> This is covered in IPP/2.0; basically if there is a conflict between resolution and quality, quality wins.
>> As far as PWG Raster goes, that is a separate capability (PwgRasterDocumentResolutionSupported) that expresses the capabilities of the input side of the printer's imaging engine, while Resolution expresses the capabilities of the output side of the printer's imaging engine.
>> (i.e. a printer might only accept 360dpi raster data but print it at 2880dpi...)
>>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Petrie, Glen wrote:
>>> Pete (All),
>> I remember a discussion about resolution versus quality (I think the PWG raster discussions). I thought that is quality and resolution did not agree (as interpreted by the print service capability/definition) then quality was to be used. In the PJT should resolution and quality be denoted as either but not both? Or at least should a note be added?
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
> mfd mailing list
>mfd at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
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...