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@cp10.es.xerox.com>
02/20/2001 05:40 PM
To: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
cc: owner-pwg@pwg.org, pwg@pwg.org, pwg-ipp@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@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 16:28
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: owner-pwg@pwg.org; pwg@pwg.org; pwg-ipp@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@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
02/20/2001 04:18 PM
To: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org, pwg@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@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 14:24
To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org; pwg@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
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 20 2001 - 22:20:07 EST