attachment
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Courier;
panose-1:2 7 4 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#467886;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Agreed, yeah it would probably be good to have a more involved discussion here to get PWG’s input. I’ve been using the mailing list so far but getting more input from Mopria members and PWG would help to iron
out if there’s specification gaps and how a client is expected to behave for PWG-Raster landscape rotations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) <smith.kennedy@hp.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 26, 2025 11:24 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> PWG IPP WG Reflector <ipp@pwg.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Michael Ziller <mziller@microsoft.com>; Michael Sweet <msweet@msweet.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [IPP] [EXTERNAL] Specifying landscape orientation for PWG-Raster<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Michael and Mike,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jun 26, 2025, at 12:12<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span>PM, Michael Sweet via ipp <<a href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: auto;text-align:start;widows: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Courier">Maybe I'm missing some considerations here. Just want to be sure that leaving this up to the client doesn't have concerns as far as specification. Mopria is looking to solidify PWG-R rotation
behavior and if 'client decides' is the best strategy then that would be good to outline. But I'd first like to get further feedback on whether that will have any future drawbacks (since this may have firmware implications). I'll attend next PWG meeting and
have encouraged interested Mopria members to as well to discuss further.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Courier"><br>
Most of the time the direction of rotation is less important than the fact that it is rotated to landscape. Users want consistency, of course, but I'd hope that Client software can make a consistent choice based on what the Printer reports for the media and
for any finishing options that might be applied.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I appreciate you bringing these concerns to the PWG. Does there need to be a more involved and interactive discussion between Mopria and PWG on this subject? It would be a shame if Mopria were defining guidance that would cause interoperability
problems with other standards such as IPP Everywhere, especially for Printers that are implemented to support both.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>