Tom,
There's no ambiguity in my mind. You increment exactly one of the three
counters ([monochrome]impressionsCompleted,
fullColorImpressionsCompleted, or highlightColorImpressionsCompleted)
for each SIDE completed. If the side requires 3 or more colorants to
produce the impression then it's Full Color, black plus one other
colorant would be Highlight color, and a side that uses only black would
cause the monochrome counter to increment. To display job progress to a
user you need to sum all three of these counters.
For example, if you produce a duplex sheet with full process color
graphics on the front side and black text on the back side, then you
would increment fullColorImpressionsCompleted when the front side was
completed and [monochrome]impressionsCompleted when the back was
complete. Since the descriptions of these attributes were changed to say
"For printing, the impressions completed includes interpreting, marking,
and stacking the output", then this implies to me that both counters
would be incremented simultaneously when this completed duplex sheet was
delivered to the output.
Is there something else I'm missing here?
Obviously these objects do not provide detailed colorant use information
for each page. To do so would require objects to count the actual amount
of each colorant transferred to each side. So as a compromise, we
proposed these two new objects (which complement the previously existing
[monochrome]impressionsCompleted counter) to provide enough information
for an accounting application to bill at different rates for monochrome,
highlight color, and full color impressions within a job.
Thanks,
Angelo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Hastings [SMTP:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.coM]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 11:26 AM
> To: Angelo_Caruso at wb.xerox.com> Cc: XCMI Editors only
> Subject: Ambiguity in XCMI & PWG Job Mon:
> fullColorImpressionsCompleted(1
>> URGENT:
>> The current definition of fullColorImpressionsCompleted(114) and
> highlightColorImpressionsCompleted(115) is:
>> fullColorImpressionsCompleted(114), Integer32(-2..2147483647)
> INTEGER: The number of full color impressions completed by the device
> for
> this job so far. For printing, the impressions completed includes
> interpreting, marking, and stacking the output. For other types of
> job
> services, the number of impressions completed includes the number of
> impressions processed. Full color impressions are typically defined as
> those requiring 3 or more colorants, but this MAY vary by
> implementation.
>> highlightColorImpressionsCompleted(115),
> Integer32(-2..2147483647)
> INTEGER: The number of highlight color impressions completed by the
> device
> for this job so far. For printing, the impressions completed includes
> interpreting, marking, and stacking the output. For other types of
> job
> services, the number of impressions completed includes the number of
> impressions processed. Highlight color impressions are typically
> defined
> as those requiring black plus one other colorant, but this MAY vary by
> implementation.
>>> Suppose you have a 4 color process that makes four passes through the
> marker
> for each side, does this attribute count by 1 for each pass or does
> it still
> count just the number of sides?
>> The advantage of counting the number of color passes is that something
>> counts for each pass which can be shown to a user. Also accounting
> may
> want to charge for each color pass. Conceivably, there might be a
> variable
> number of passes, depending on the colors demanded by each image?
>> The advantage of only counting once per side, is that you can then
> compare
> the number of impressions for the job with the number of
> fullColorImpressionsCompleted and determine the percentage of color
> impressions in the job. Also this definition seems to be more in
> keeping
> with the
> concept of "stacking" the media mentioned in the definition.
>> Since Xerox proposed this attribute, what did we have in mind?
>> Thanks,
> Tom