Glen,
There may in fact be reasons to keep the two attributes separate (e.g. for copy), but I wanted to mention this now rather than in 6 months when everyone has prototyped using "print-color-mode"...
On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Petrie, Glen wrote:
> I still disagree that we, the PWG, are doing "imaging"; that's what
> cameras do. We do print, scan, fax and copy. In today's world of
> computer programming is the amount of space to define
> "print-color-color" and "scan-color-mode" that wasteful and having the
> two provides more understanding to either a source device or a target
> device.
>> Glen
>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Sweet
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 1:53 PM
> To: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: [IPP] "print-color-mode" or "imaging-color-mode"?
>> All,
>> If we consider scanning and printing of forms, the "bi-level"
> (threshold) mode makes sense for both. Do we want to rename
> "print-color-mode" to "imaging-color-mode" in anticipation of using is
> for other MFD services in IPP?
>> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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
________________________________________________________________________
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.