Hi Bill,
Agreed - I'll rewrite it as an Objective per your suggestions.
But I'll note, that if we do decide we need a new document
format (new protocols are out-of-scope entirely in IPP EW),
we'll have to revise and re-approve the charter.
Working Group charters have open-ended continuing update
activities. But Project charters have always had to enumerate
and give a proposed schedule for every deliverable spec.
For example, we had to revise IPPv2 Charter to allow Tom
to finish the spec that's now known as JPS2.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:12 PM, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> Considering that, as stated in the PWG Process document, the requirements
> are established after the Charter is approved, the Charter perhaps should
> not be so specific. Since requirements have not yet been considered by the
> group in general, it would seem premature to say whether or not a new
> protocol may be considered or how many documents must be generated.
>> I would observe that I see nothing in the Problem Statement that clearly
> predicates either the OSS or OBJ statements. Indeed, this Charter appears to
> suggest that the solution has already been decided upon, which may indeed be
> the case. Considering that the problem statement is real and should be
> addressed for the benefit of the industry as well as the users, presupposing
> the solution seems inappropriate.
>> At any rate, I suggest dropping OSS-2 and, if desired, making the "use of
> existing data formats, protocols and bindings" an objective. (I regard
> objectives as more amenable to reconsideration as a solution to the problem
> is considered than out-of-scope statements.) I would not suggest adding
> "(re)design of a raster format" as an objective, although "defining a
> solution appropriate to a broad range of print capable devices from low end
> ink-jets to enterprise MFDs" (or whatever) might be an appropriate objective
> that follows from the problem statement.
>> Bill Wagner
>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Ira
> McDonald
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:21 AM
> To: Michael Sweet; Ira McDonald
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: [IPP] Re: Interim draft of IPP Everywhere Project Charter (2 March
> 2010)
>> Hi Mike,
>> If you really think that we're going to need not just a subset of
> an existing raster format, but actually to (re)define a raster
> format, then we're going to have to add a 3rd spec.
>> Because the SC will want a separate document, because the
> PWG prototyping requirements for document formats are much
> higher - i.e., a full coverage implementation, example files, and
> details.
>> Both PWG PDF/is and PWG XHTML-Print went through this
> more stringent process.
>> For PDF/is, the principal editor Rick Seeler (Adobe) just
> implemented every feature as the design firmed up in his
> sample documents and demonstrated correct behavior with
> Acrobat Reader and another application - he also formally
> collaborated with the PDF/A folks about the nuts and bolts.
>> A raster format is much simpler than PDF but if we bury it in
> the one standards-track IPP EW spec, then that whole spec
> will be held up in Prototype status by the more stringent
> process - not desirable.
>> I suggest, if CUPS Raster is the starting point then Apple
> and CUPS team revise the CUPS Raster format officially
> (with a named variant?) to cover the IPP Everywhere
> mobile requirements and then let the PWG IPP EW just
> reference that revised format.
>> The new raster format could still be done *with* the PWG,
> it's just not ideal *in* the PWG (which has put the "don't
> develop any new document formats" in most every project
> charter for a decade).
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com> winter:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> 734-944-0094
> summer:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434
>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>>>> Based on Mike Sweet's comments, I have just posted an Interim
>>> draft of the IPP Everywhere Project Charter at:
>>>>>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippeverywhere-charter-20100302.pdf /
> doc
>>> - clean copy with line numbers
>>>>>>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippeverywhere-charter-20100302-rev.pdf>>> /doc
>>> - redline copy with line numbers
>>>>>> Please send comments ASAP and before next IPP WG meeting on 15 March.
>>>>>> I still think we need to remove OSS-2 and add an objective to identify
> and/or (re)define a raster format.
>>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.