IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> the *platform* vendor will create the driver

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> the *platform* vendor will create the driver

Re: IPP> the *platform* vendor will create the driver

Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:26:59 -0500

David,

Perhaps I should say "the platform vendor should create as many
drivers as possible", rather than "the platform vendor should
create the driver".

Specifically, I was thinking in terms of the "port monitor"
side of the driver, using Windows terminology. (That is,
the part of the driver responsible for transmitting the
print job to the printer, and handling all details of that
transaction.)

You're correct in pointing out the need for certain printer
vendors (or their subcontractors) to develop special imaging
components of the "driver". This part of the "driver" is not
what I was referring to.

...jay

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------

David R Spencer wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> 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.
>
> Are the printer vendors active PWG members?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Thanks,
> David Spencer
>
> ____________________________________________
> David R. Spencer President
> Spencer & Associates Publishing, Ltd.
> Three Giffard Way, Melville, NY 11747-2310
> 1-516-367-6655 Fax: 1-516-367-2878
> david@spencer.com http://www.spencer.com
> ____________________________________________