That's my point...
>JDF is at least one order of magnitude more complex than IPP and
>it tries to solve a much larger problem than IPP solves.
If JDF is aimed at production printing and finds it a magnitude of order
more complex (than IPP), then is it really appropriate to "standardize"
IPP Production Print?
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Herriot, Robert" <Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
02/21/2001 11:18 AM
To: Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>, "Herriot, Robert"
<Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com>
cc: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>, "Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>, owner-pwg at pwg.org, pwg at pwg.org,
pwg-ipp at pwg.org, "Herriot, Robert" <Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com>
Subject: RE: PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes
I think that IDPrinting in JDF is a reasonable bridge, but I encourage
others to review it and see if I missed something.
I'm not sure what you mean by "adopt JDF". JDF is at least one order of
magnitude more complex than IPP and it tries to solve a much larger
problem
than IPP solves.
The JDF work until this point has been done by a consortium of a few
companies. CIP4 is just now forming and JDF is being handed of to CIP4. It
isn't clear how things will work. I would certainly encourage PWG members
to
participate in CIP4, but I'm not sure what it would mean for PWG to work
with CIP4.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 9:24 PM
> To: Herriot, Robert
> Cc: Manros, Carl-Uno B; Hastings, Tom N; owner-pwg at pwg.org;
>pwg at pwg.org;
>pwg-ipp at pwg.org; Herriot, Robert
> Subject: RE: PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes
>>> Bob, I appreciate your efforts to help map IPP and JDF. Do
> you think this
> mapping is an effective bridge between the groups? Would it
> be better for
> IPP to "adopt" JDF (i.e. via opaque container)? Can something
> be done to
> influence CIP4 to "embrace" IPP? This is what I had in mind
> when I (and
> several others, on several occasions) recommended a more
> "formal" relation
> between CIP4 and PWG.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>> "Herriot, Robert" <Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com>
> Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org> 02/19/2001 08:42 PM
>>> To: Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>,
>pwg-ipp at pwg.org, pwg at pwg.org> cc: "Hastings, Tom N"
> <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>, "Herriot, Robert"
> <Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com>, "Manros, Carl-Uno B"
> <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>
> Subject: RE: PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes
>>>> With regard to issues concerning JDF, I have been working
> with JDF people
> to
> get IPP into JDF. We added an IDPrinting element, which has a direct
> mapping to IPP. I wrote Appendix F which maps JDF to IPP.
>> Bob Herriot
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 2:24 PM
> > To: pwg-ipp at pwg.org; pwg at pwg.org> > Cc: hastings; Herriot, Robert; cmanros
> > Subject: PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes
>> > 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
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
>>>