IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>MOD new attributes, such as orientation

Re: IPP>MOD new attributes, such as orientation

Jim Walker (walker@dazel.com)
Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:23:15 -0500

Robert Herriot wrote:
>
> ...
>
> When Roger described the reason for wanting this attribute, it was to
> control 2-up so that the orientation would be right. Portrait page
> images rotate 90 degrees counterclockwise and landscape page-images
> rotate 90 degress clockwise. There is no issue for 1-up or 4-up because
> they don't rotate. So, if this is the problem he is solving, he should
> instead ask for an additional value called 2-up-landscape or
> 2-up-counter-rotate, whatever is his choice.

If we are going to be pedantic, then I would suggest that we remove the
attribute altogether. I would rather have implementations add their
own (incompatible) extensions, and have those extensions implement this
properly, than have the kludge suggested above. I mean, we already have
existing practive to show that the a content-orientation attribute is
very useful as a hint to a number-up algorithm to determine both page
rotation and placement. I would hate to see us ignore that experience.

And Bob, the orientation is useful for *all* number-up > 1. If you
go back and think about number-up 4, one would place the logical
pages on the physical page in a different order based upon the
orientation hint.

think about it...
...walker

--
Jim Walker <walker@dazel.com>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX