attachment
<div dir="ltr">That's sensible behavior for the standard as applicable to printers. Is there a recommendation for client behavior? It seems like clients should prefer PDF since that should be smaller on the wire,</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:51 PM Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards Architect) <<a href="mailto:smith.kennedy@hp.com">smith.kennedy@hp.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Good question, Sean. The reason for this is to set a baseline for interoperability. Some clients may not support PDF. So all Clients and Printers are required to support PWG Raster as a bare minimum. That way, there will always be some common document format that both can fall back to.<br>
<br>
Smith<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Mar 4, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Sean Kau via ipp <<a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp@pwg.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Question about the IPP Everywhere specification:<br>
> <br>
> Why do we require that printers support PWG-Raster if it can accept PDF? Is this to improve compatibility with clients? I tried to look through the archives and couldn't find any commentary.<br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> Sean Kau<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> ipp mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org" target="_blank">ipp@pwg.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/OLVKCXDwEwTKJv3Bh6nyay?domain=pwg.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/OLVKCXDwEwTKJv3Bh6nyay?domain=pwg.org</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Sean Kau</div></div>