IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> The "bind" value of the

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> The "bind" value of the

Re: IPP> The "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute

From: Robert Herriot (bob@herriot.com)
Date: Mon May 20 2002 - 17:04:16 EDT

  • Next message: Carl: "IPP> FW: BOUNCE ipp@pwg.org: Non-member submission from [Internet-Drafts@ietf.org]"

    Thanks for the reply. I am not suggesting that we add another value for the "finishings" attribute.

    Instead I'm trying to find out whether "bind" was put into the IPP spec to satisfy product requirements or whether it accidentally slipped in with the reasoning that "no one needs it now, but its support is optional and someone may find such a generalization useful in the future."

    The "bind" value expresses an intent for binding without giving the specifics. Generally, the IPP finishings attribute is specific about a particular binding process, e.g. "staple", "saddle-stitch", "fold". In the JDF world, the latter is a process, and the former is intent. The "bind" value creates a mapping problem (for JDF to support IPP) because the "bind" value must be converted to "staple" or something else by the time the job is actually being processed in JDF.

    In the JDF model, the IPP "bind" value is a problem. From the IPP point of view, the JDF model may be too black and white when it separates the world into intent and process. In the real world, intent may be very close to process or very far.

    Bob Herriot
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Zehler, Peter
      To: 'Robert Herriot' ; ipp@pwg.org
      Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:49 AM
      Subject: RE: IPP> The "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute

      Bob,

      Was it added as a generic term for any type of binding (e.g. tape, coil binding, plastic comb) without identifying the bound edge ? I am not aware of the value 'bind' being used for "finishings" in any implementation. Any Printer that offers finishing normally describes the type of finishing with a specific value instead of the generic 'bind'. (see ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.1.pdf) This spec resolves the bind location but still does not qualify the type of binding. Do we need to add some new values/qualifiers to the PWG model?

      Pete

              Peter Zehler
              XEROX
              Xerox Architecture Center
              Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
              Voice: (716) 265-8755
              FAX: (716) 265-8871
              US Mail: Peter Zehler

                        Xerox Corp.
                        800 Phillips Rd.
                        M/S 128-30E
                        Webster NY, 14580-9701

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Robert Herriot [mailto:bob@herriot.com]
        Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 3:58 AM
        To: ipp@pwg.org
        Subject: IPP> The "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute

        An issue has come up in another standards effort which is trying to map IPP attributes.

        The question is about the "bind" value of the IPP "finishings" attribute. It is the least specific value of "finishings".

        Does anyone remember why the "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute was put into IPP?

        Does anyone implement it?

        Bob Herriot



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 20 2002 - 17:00:44 EDT