Out of curiosity, it would seem possible (and perhaps it already exists) for
a cell phone to use its camera as a scanner and to implement Scan and/or
FaxOut services, perhaps even using an IPP binding. Should we be
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:53 PM
To: William A Wagner
Cc: munehisa.matsuda at brother.co.jp; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] Questions for the stable draft of IPP FaxOut
On 2013-04-17, at 12:33 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> I seem to recall that we decided to make Send-Hardcopy-Document
> optional or conditionally mandatory (if there is a scan capability)
> and were going to ask for an errata on the SM FaxOut spec.
Correct. Apologies if I wasn't clear below, but Send-Hardcopy-Document is
only required for printers with scanners.
>> Bill W.
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Sweet
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:21 PM
> To: munehisa.matsuda at brother.co.jp> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: [IPP] Questions for the stable draft of IPP FaxOut
>> On 2013-04-17, at 4:24 AM, munehisa.matsuda at brother.co.jp wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>>> We have two questions regarding the stable draft of IPP FaxOut.
>>>> 1. Send-Hardcopy-Document:
>> Since we cannot imagine the usage, we do not understand why this
> MUST be supported.
>> So could you tell us the use case of the Send-Hardcopy-Document
>> If this operation is NOT critical for IPP FaxOut, we suggest to
>> change it
> to be "optional" for implementing easily.
>> If you have a scan head on your MFP then users will want to be able to
> fax documents from that scan head. There are already a lot of mobile
> applications being provided that serve as alternatives to the
> printer's own control panel, so this operation would allow those
> applications to support faxout as well.
>> And FWIW, the current wording is based on the intended conformance of
> the Semantic Model FaxOut spec, which makes the operation required.
>>> 2. destination-statuses:
>> We want to clarify which transmission status value should be
>> specified in
> the "destination-statuses" when a multiple destination job is canceled.
>> Details are described below, but we think it is slightly unclear.
>> I'm happy to clarify the text here.
>>> "4.1.3 Job Terminating State
>> "The terminating state of an IPP FaxOut Job reflects the absolute
> disposition of the Job. Jobs in the 'canceled' state were canceled by
> a User using the Cancel-Job, Cancel-Jobs, or Cancel-My-Jobs
> operations, regardless of whether any or all of the Job has been
> processed or partially transferred to its destination URI(s). The
> "destination-statuses" Job Description attribute (section 7.3.1)
> provides detailed information regarding the progress of the job prior to
>>>> For example, the job has 5 destinations.
>> The job is canceled when the device is transfering fax document to
>> job-state: canceled
>> 1. completed
>> 2. completed
>> 3. canceled
>> 4. canceled
>> 5. canceled
>>>> Which is correct?
>> The latter.
> 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.
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>
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.