So let me ask you - what things are not included? Why do you not consider
this to be a complete MIB?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bergman [SMTP:rbergma@dpc.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 5:37 PM
> To: Paul Moore
> Cc: 'Harry Lewis'; fin@pwg.org; jkm@underscore.com; Tom Hastings;
> Paul_Gloger@cp10.es.xerox.com
> Subject: RE: FIN> On reading the FIN draft
>
> Paul,
>
> Now I understand the specific issue you are having with the Finisher MIB.
> (So with the religious issues aside we can discuss the problems that we
> can actually solve;-)
>
> We have tried to all the possible parameters (i.e. attributes) for each
> finisher process. As it turned out, the punch operation was the most
> complex and thus the big (huge might be a better description) set of
> attributes. For the other operations we tried to also include all the
> possible attributes.
>
> In your example of binding, there are 8 enums in FinBindingTypeTC that
> can be used to define the method of binding. They are Tape, Plastic,
> Velo, Perfect, Spiral, Adhesive, Comb, and Padding. Other than the
> position of the binding on the document, which should be defined in the
> attribute table, there is little else that can be said about binding.
> (I forgot about color, which is specified in finSupplyColorantValue.)
> Indeed there are other parameters that could be of interest in this case,
> such as the width of the bind on the cover, but these are fixed for the
> process and usually independent of the finisher device. What else do you
> need to know about binding?
>
> If you do have time to review the document and can point to specifics or
> even an area where additional information can be provided, we will bw more
> than happy to resolve the issue.
>
> BTW the latest Finisher MIB Document is dated June 11, 1998 and can be
> found on the PWG FTP site under FIN/MIBS or FIN/SPECS (I forget which).
>
> Hope this information helps.
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> > Let me explain why I raised the issue and they maybe you will understand
> > what I am talking about.
> >
> > I am looking at attribute sets for printers. Rather than sit and think
> for
> > several weeks, the obvious thing to do is to look at the existing work
> done
> > by large groups of intelligent people who know this stuff inside out. So
> I
> > looked in TIPSI, here is a big set of attributes with their values and
> > meaning. Next I looked in 1759, aha - here are really detailed
> attributes
> > for paper trays, Oh and marking systems, and even cover panels - great.
> Next
> > I looked in the finisher MIB, great here is a REALLY detailed analysis
> of
> > punching and here is a detailed analysis for.. - but no - there are no
> more
> > detailed anaylses, only a scheme for recording them. So I have hit a
> > roadblock - where do I go to look for the attributes for, say , a
> perfect
> > binder. The FIN MIB requires that there be another document somewhere
> else -
> > the 'Perfect Binder Attribute Set for FIN MIB'
> >
> > I have a practical problem - not a architectural one.
> >
> > What you should have done is to do FIN MIB part1 (staple, punch and
> general
> > status), then done part2 (Binders, sorters and inserters) then
> > part3(shredders, igniters and bleachers). Or even done a separate MIB
> for
> > each FIN sub-unit.
> >
> > I think the criticism that we should have said this earlier is not
> > reasonable. Nobody can read all drafts at all stages of revision.
> >