PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes

PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes

PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Wed Feb 21 13:49:36 EST 2001


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 
> > ---------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> 
> 
> 






More information about the Pwg mailing list