I'm just an observer, but your comment here confuses me:
>> Seems to me that applications care more about the printer driver API
>> in the host OS rather than the protocol. The printer vendor will
>> create the driver, the app writer just prints to the API.
>Actually, most PWG members would rather say "the *platform* vendor
>will create the driver". Hence, the critical importance of getting
>such players as Microsoft on board (and *happy* ;-).
Some drivers need to incorporate RGB to CMYK color conversion, perhaps with=
multiple gamut intents, all dependent upon device-unique screening, ink=
colors, etc. etc. Unique features, such as PostScript allows in PPDs, must=
be included. These are product differentiators and potential competitive=
advantages. It therefore seems that the printer vendor should be=
responsible for driver development -- even if it is subcontracted -- not=
the platform vendor.
Are you saying that the "driver" is only a shell and that the vendors can=
deal with everything through PPDs or their non-PostScript PDL equivalents? =
Even in that case, I recall one major vendor shipping an "obsolete" driver=
with his new machine because the "current" platform driver shell could not=
support his features/needs. =20
Are the printer vendors active PWG members?=20
What am I missing?
David R. Spencer President
Spencer & Associates Publishing, Ltd.
Three Giffard Way, Melville, NY 11747-2310
1-516-367-6655 Fax: 1-516-367-2878