PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes

PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes

PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes

Harry Lewis harryl at
Tue Feb 20 19:28:25 EST 2001

Nonetheless, with JDF still in development, is this a good time to 
progress such a "production" intensive extension to IPP?
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 

"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at>
Sent by: owner-pwg at
02/20/2001 04:18 PM

        To:     Harry Lewis <harryl at>
        cc:     pwg-ipp at, pwg at
        Subject:        PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes



The PWG Production Printing documents have been published since January 
on the PWG server.

However, we didn't really address them until the September meeting. The
minutes contain the following:

2.5 Production Printing

Carl-Uno referenced the JDF activity [] that
has received much attention at the Seybold Conference. According to
Carl-Uno, there is an ongoing attempt to get the JDF effort to adopt the 

2.6 Production Printing Attributes

Tom Hastings led a review of the latest draft of the Production Printing
Attributes document:
It was suggested that a "force new sheet" attribute should be added. A
capability for defining "flush-left/right/top/bottom" was also suggested.

It was agreed that "x-image-auto-center" and "y-image-auto-center" will be
replaced by "x-image-position" (left/right/center) and "y-image-position"

"Job-recipient-name" and "media-weight-english" were removed from the

It was suggested that the protocol include the specification of both input
tray and media size. A "media-by-tray" attribute will be added.

During the review, Tom noted various other minor modifications that were
suggested and agreed. He will update the document and issue the next draft
before a PWG Last Call.

3.4 Presentation Direction

Bob explained two new [Job Template]
attributes-"presentation-direction-requested" and
"presentation-direction-number-up"-that he proposes for additional 

It was agreed that presentation-direction (as it applies to number-up) 
be included in the updated Production Printing Attributes document.

We also reviewed the document again at the December IPP WG meeting (which
you were unable to attend).  Those minutes contain:

2. Administrivia
· Final voting process to start to become PWG standards:
* IPP Production Printing Attributes - Set1
* IPP Override Attributes for Documents and Pages
* IPP "output-bin" attribute extension
* IPP "finishings" attribute values extension

10.1 IPP Production Printing Attributes - Set1

Tom Hastings announced that Xerox has discovered a few problems with
Impression Image Shifting Attributes in this document and would like to
delay its progression to PWG Standard. They would like to include more
terms, attributes, and clarifications in Section 3.18. Tom explained the 
attributes and described several methods of placing impressions on paper.
The proposed modifications have not yet been distributed for review,
but Tom plans to issue a new draft soon.

We discussed the image shifting by drawing pictures on the flip chart 
to verify that the distinctions between imposition and signature printing
agreed with industry practice.
I hope this helps answer your concerns about the time we've spent on them.


-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 14:24
To: pwg-ipp at; pwg at
Cc: hastings; Herriot, Robert; cmanros
Subject: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes

As the vote for IPP Production Attributes nears, I would like to reiterate 

several concerns I have had throughout the life of this draft.

1. As a PWG draft, this topic does not seem to have received the same 
level of attention and discussion (ex. in f2f meetings or on the wire) as 
have the IETF related efforts (Notifications, Security, Bakeoff's etc.). 
While the document has received a couple short reviews, it is my opinion 
that these have been overshadowed by broader issues at the f2f meetings. 

2. The document introduces numerous concepts such as page ordering, image 
shifting and finishing features, some of which are fairly exotic. Granted, 

the scope of this proposal is "Production" but I wonder if this narrow 
scope may have resulted in less than broad participation in actually 
reviewing and digesting this document.

3. There are other industry consortia addressing similar areas. The CIP4 - 

JDF is one example. There has been no formal PWG effort to assure harmony 
or compatibility between JDF and IPP Production Attributes.
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 

More information about the Pwg mailing list