[MFD] [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

[MFD] [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

[MFD] [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 15:14:19 UTC 2013


Hi,

At the risk of adding confusion...

We speak of submitting Jobs with document data by reference (URI)
or by value (attached).

Why not just add "by scan (local scanner)".

What I don't like about the term "Hardcopy Document Object" is that
the word Scan or Scanner isn't there, but this is always the source.

Cheers,
- Ira

PS - I dislike putting titlecase prefixes on Document Object or Job
Object - it muddies readability.



Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434



On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>wrote:

>  Mike,****
>
> Well, I guess I’ll be quiet now except to say it would be a good time to
> describe the attributes and constraints on all three types of Documents. J
> ****
>
> Pete****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter Zehler
>
> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
> Voice: (585) 265-8755
> FAX: (585) 265-7441
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 128-25E
> Webster NY, 14580-9701 ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at msweet.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:14 PM
>
> *To:* Zehler, Peter
> *Cc:* IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document****
>
>  ** **
>
> Pete,****
>
> ** **
>
> I guess we are in violent agreement.  One comment below.****
>
> ** **
>
> On 2013-08-06, at 12:54 PM, "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  ...****
>
> This is the difference between a Hardcopy Document and a Hardcopy Document
> /Object/. We need to define the latter and not the former.****
>
> <PZ>I see no subclasses of Documents in the PWG Semantic Model or IPP.
> Whether a document is added to a Job by value, by reference, or by
> reference to the output of the scanner subunit, it is still just a Document
> object. ****
>
>  ** **
>
> I am not suggesting a subclass of document.****
>
> ** **
>
> We already categorize documents as "referenced" and "with attached
> document data". For hardcopy documents we would have a Document Object
> containing description attributes/elements that identify the source and
> properties of the hardcopy document.****
>
> ** **
>
> I chose to call it a "Hardcopy Document Object" as opposed to a "Document
> Object with Associated Hardcopy Document Input Elements".  How the digital
> representation is stored and when exactly the document is scanned are,
> IMHO, implementation specific.****
>
> ** **
>
> _____________
> Michael Sweet****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
> ipp at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20130807/fe3dd3e7/attachment.html>


More information about the mfd mailing list