Charles,
We can talk briefly about this, but I suspect we should focus on this during the F2F meeting where we can talk most about user experience WRT IPP Everywhere.
I have uploaded these slides to:
https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/slides/CanonQuestionsonPageRotation-20250703.pdf
> On Jul 3, 2025, at 2:28 PM, Charles Armstrong <carmstrong at cusa.canon.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mike and all,
> Sorry for the short notice. I have been asked to bring the following questions to PWG regarding the page rotation.
> Our specific questions and points for discussion are outlined in the attached PDF file.
> I'd like to discuss these items if time permits today.
> I look forward to a productive discussion.
> Best Regards,
> Charles
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipp <ipp-bounces at pwg.org> On Behalf Of Michael Sweet via ipp
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 4:05 PM
> To: Michael Ziller <mziller at microsoft.com>
> Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org>; PWG IPP Workgroup <ipp at pwg.org>
> Subject: Re: [IPP] [EXTERNAL] Specifying landscape orientation for PWG-Raster
>> Email was not sent from a Canon Network!
>> Michael,
>>> On Jun 26, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Michael Ziller <mziller at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> 2. As far as "landscape control" I'm not sure what is meant - is the suggestion to offer both landscape and reverse-landscape to the user? I see no current dialogs doing this but rather them currently translating a Landscape dialog request into landscape vs reverse-landscape
>> The current macOS print dialog includes a portrait/landscape chooser and a separate "reverse orientation" switch (disclosed under the Layout options) to choose reverse-portrait/landscape. I don't have my other systems in front of me but I seem to remember that the CPDB print dialog on Linux also supports all orientations?
>>> 3. Concern here is whether client choice of Landscape orientation impacts printer ability to do transformations such as inserting staples, bindings, etc. I just want to make sure that what we decide is congruent to what printer optional components require as far as stapling positions, etc. I'm more soliciting information here so we can make informed decisions, rather than critiquing current specs. If client heuristics are what's best then maybe let's make that more solidified in terms of behavior.
>> I think we can (continue to) provide guidance regarding finishings, but client UI is generally outside the scope of IPP - we can provide the necessary information and offer guidance, but there is no way for us to "enforce" that a Client use that information...
>> ________________________
> Michael Sweet
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp> <Canon Questions on Page Rotation.pdf>
________________________
Michael Sweet