IPP> last call comment on Override document

IPP> last call comment on Override document

IPP> last call comment on Override document

Herriot, Robert Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com
Wed Nov 29 22:21:49 EST 2000

You asked me to provide examples of why I wanted to change four attributes
in the document-overrides and page-overrides from rangeOfInteger to 1setOf
rangeOfInteger. The four attributes are input-documents, output-documents,
document-copies and pages.

The mapping from JDF to IPP without the proposed changes is still easy. It
just may be more verbose than if the proposed changes were in effect.

For example, suppose a job needs a special media on 20 pages where none are

In JDF the override would consist of the specified media and the value of
the pages attribute would be the 20 integers, expressed as 20 ranges.

In IPP (without the change), the override would consist of 20 separate
collection values. Each collection value would contain the specified media
and the value of the pages attribute would be one of the 20 integers,
expressed as a range. In IPP with the proposed change, the override would be
like the one in JDF.

One could argue that IPP doesn't need this change because this case is
extremely rare. But there may be another reason -- consistency.  In IPP we
have been inconsistent about how we represent the abstract notion of a set
of integers. We represent this concept in any of the following ways:
    a) 1setOf integer
    b) rangeOfInteger
    c) 1setOf rangeOfInteger
    d) 1setOf(integer | rangeOfInteger)

Each of these solutions is really a representation of a set of integers
optimized for or limited to the expected values. Solution d) is the most
compact. Solution c) is the next most compact and is simpler than d). So
that is why c) is a good proposal for all sets of integers. 

Bob Herriot

> -----Original Message-----
> From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:38 AM
> To: Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com
> Subject: Re: IPP> last call comment on Override document
> Bob:
> Some examples of these might be help for everyone to 
> understand the limitations
> and the difficulties in mapping that would result if these 
> changes were not
> made.
> Thanks!
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com *
> * Chair, Printer Working Group               *
> * Chair, IEEE MSC                            *
> *                                            *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances  *
> * Lexmark International                      *
> * 740 New Circle Rd                          *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
> * 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax)    *
> **********************************************
> Robert.Herriot%pahv.xerox.com at interlock.lexmark.com on 
> 11/15/2000 09:09:40 PM
> To:   ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com
> cc:    (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject:  IPP> last call comment on Override document
> After doing a JDF to IPP mapping, I realized that four 
> attributes in the
> override spec are too specific. For the four attributes 
> below, the spec says
> that the syntax is rangeOfInteger but in JDF the same 
> attributes have a
> syntax which is the equivalent of 1setOf rangeOfInteger.  So 
> I suggest that
> we change these four attributes to have the syntax "1setOf
> rangeOfInteger(1:MAX))". Without this change the mapping 
> between JDF and IPP
> is more difficult.
> input-documents (rangeOfInteger (1:MAX))
> output-documents (rangeOfInteger (1:MAX))
> document-copies (rangeOfInteger (1:MAX))
> pages (1setOf rangeOfInteger(1:MAX))
> Bob Herriot

More information about the Ipp mailing list