IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-reci

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-reci

RE: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-recipient-name" Job Template att ribute

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Wed Sep 20 2000 - 16:48:52 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-recipient-name" Job Template att ribute"

    Yes, and only needs to be used when the recipient is different than the
    submitter.

    Since the "job-recipient-name" is carried as a Job object attribute, an end
    user can also query the pending jobs to see which ones aren't printed yet or
    can query the completed jobs to see what jobs are for him/her to go pickup.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jay Martin [mailto:jkm@underscore.com]
    Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 09:07
    To: Michael Sweet
    Cc: Hastings, Tom N; ipp (E-mail); QUALDOCS DL (E-mail)
    Subject: Re: IPP> REG - Proposal for "job-recipient-name" Job Template
    attribute

    Are we to assume that the primary functional requirement surrounding
    this thread is the issue of putting someone's name on a banner sheet
    (to be printed before the first document of the job)?

            ...jay

    Michael Sweet wrote:
    >
    > "Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
    > > ...
    > > Now I'm more confused. The purpose of "job-recipient-name" was NOT
    > > notification, but indicating who was the intended recipient of the
    > > hardcopy produced by a job when the intended recipient is different
    > > ...
    > > (lots of ways to use job-recipient-name to hand-deliver output to
    > > the recipient deleted)
    > > ...
    >
    > You can easily mark output for a different recipient using the new
    > attribute. That's basically the same as sending a cover sheet with
    > a fax, and will probably work well in current environments provided
    > there is someone to look through and distribute them.
    >
    > *However*, there are situations where you might want to send a
    > document to someone but don't know their user name. *That's*
    > what the operator/administrator keywords would address.
    >
    > In addition, I think that we need to address the obvious extension
    > of this new attribute to notifications. Why should IPP automate
    > everything *except* for something as simple as notifying the
    > recipient when a job is printed for him/her? A user should be
    > able to subscribe to a printer object and have a notification
    > sent whenever a job destined for him/her has been completed.
    >
    > --
    > ______________________________________________________________________
    > Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike@easysw.com
    > Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 16:59:48 EDT