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

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

Herriot, Robert Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com
Wed Feb 21 13:54:16 EST 2001


Please send me a list of holes in IDPrinting of JDF. It would be good to
have more people review it and distribute comments.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:20 PM
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: owner-pwg at pwg.org; pwg at pwg.org; pwg-ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes
> 
> 
> I agree with the benefit of cross referencing and 
> co-developing (portions 
> of the IPP and JDF standards). But this sounds like Chicken 
> and Egg. I see 
> lots of holes in Appx F. This is not a criticism of Bob's 
> work. It's a 
> basic question of who's driving what.
> ---------------------------------------------- 
> Harry Lewis 
> IBM Printing Systems 
> ---------------------------------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
> 02/20/2001 05:40 PM
> 
>  
>         To:     Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>
>         cc:     owner-pwg at pwg.org, pwg at pwg.org, pwg-ipp at pwg.org
>         Subject:        RE: PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production 
> Printing Attributes
> 
>  
> 
> Harry,
> 
> I think that it is a good time to publish the PWG Production Printing
> extensions as a PWG Draft standard, because of its 
> relationship with JDF
> which is just about to publish its 1.0 version.  Having the 
> PWG Production
> Printing Instructions being progressed through the PWG (and 
> they've past
> Last Call - twice), was the major reason that we were able to 
> get JDF to 
> add
> Integrated Digital Printing (called IDPrinting) process into 
> JDF and to 
> add
> the Appendix that maps IDPrinting to IPP.
> 
> The printing part of JDF is primarily for production printing.
> 
> Thus IPP and the PWG Production Printing extensions have had 
> an impact on
> JDF and the Appendix maps JDF to IPP, including the PWG Production 
> Printing
> extensions.  If the PWG doesn't go forward with publishing the PWG
> Production Printing standard, then the JDF folks will probably have to
> delete their appendix and most of the IDPrinting process.  
> That would be a
> real step backward and would leave IPP and JDF with no commonality.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 16:28
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: owner-pwg at pwg.org; pwg at pwg.org; pwg-ipp at pwg.org
> Subject: Re: PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes
> 
> 
> 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 cp10.es.xerox.com>
> Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
> 02/20/2001 04:18 PM
> 
>  
>         To:     Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>
>         cc:     pwg-ipp at pwg.org, pwg at pwg.org
>         Subject:        PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing 
> Attributes
> 
>  
> 
> Harry,
> 
> The PWG Production Printing documents have been published 
> since January 
> 2000
> 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 
> [www.job-definition-format.org] 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 
> IPP
> semantics.
> 
> 2.6 Production Printing Attributes
> 
> Tom Hastings led a review of the latest draft of the 
> Production Printing
> Attributes document:
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PPE/pwg-ipp-prod-print-set1-
> 000605.pdf
> 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"
> (top/bottom).
> 
> "Job-recipient-name" and "media-weight-english" were removed from the
> document.
> 
> 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 
> control.
> 
> It was agreed that presentation-direction (as it applies to 
> number-up) 
> will
> 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 
> new
> 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 
> easel
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 14:24
> To: pwg-ipp at pwg.org; pwg at pwg.org
> 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