IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

RE: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

From: Dave Whitehead (david@lexmark.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2008 - 08:40:32 EDT

  • Next message: Michael R Sweet: "Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?"

    I agree with Lee -- adding a mandatory document format is out-of-scope
    under our current charter. However, I also think it's a good idea.


                 "Farrell, Lee"
                 canon.com> To
                 Sent by: "Michael R Sweet"
                 owner-ipp@pwg.org <msweet@apple.com>,
                 07/29/2008 05:23 <ipp@pwg.org>
                 AM Subject
                                           RE: IPP> RFC: Add required
                                           document-format values for IPP v2?

    Before we get too far afield with this discussion topic, let me remind
    everyone of the recently approved update to the IPPv2 Statement of Work
    in which the following is identified:

    * OSS-1 New IPP functionality or features MUST NOT be included
    in this IPP/2.x specification.
    * OSS-2 Details of IPP commands, attributes, or other features
    MUST NOT be included in this IPP/2.x specification, except as needed
    (e.g., references to attributes REQUIRED by newly REQUIRED operations.

    I think defining a mandatory document format would qualify as a "New IPP


    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael
    R Sweet
    Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:52 PM
    To: ptykodi@tykodi.com
    Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?

    Paul Tykodi wrote:
    > Hi Michael,
    > As far as I know, IPP support is slowly working its way into network
    > printer interfaces for the label printing niche (both impact and
    > direct thermal/thermal transfer print technologies) and into some of
    > the dot matrix printer NIC's as well.
    > These types of printers do not support the same document formats as
    > the inkjet and laser technology based printers.
    > If IPP were to become involved with specifying document formats, I
    > think it would be a good idea to create a separate IPP document
    > formats track with its own RFC or PWG based specification that could
    > be referenced by the ippv2 documents.

    Well, the PWG already had done a lot of work in this area, including
    XHTML-Print. There are other groups that have standardized on JPEG for
    consumer devices (PictBridge and others), the ISO and IETF have
    standards for PNG, and of course the ISO has defined PDF profiles.
    I don't think the problem is having a standard or referencing other

    These formats are already supported by a wide variety of devices in
    different ways - it would be nice to guarantee support for at least one
    common format in every IPP 2.x printer, as it solves a major
    (IMHO) problem with IPP that the PWG hasn't yet tackled - all printers
    require a device-specific client-side printer driver to do even basic

    If IPP 2.x printers did support one (or all) of the formats I've listed,
    then a customer would know they could print from any client.
    Obviously there would still be a use for device-specific drivers, e.g.
    higher speed print modes and support for complex jobs, but
    *basic* printing (email, web pages, photos) could be done without all of

    IMHO, adding a (short) list of required document-formats to IPP 2.x will
    just make it *more* compelling as a standard. Right now we are just
    stapling all of the different IPP specs together to make profiles -
    chances are most vendors will look at their product and say "we already
    conform to IPP 2.0, just add 2.0 to our supported versions and move on".
    That doesn't ultimately help us promote IPP 2.x, since nothing will have
    really changed. However, if we can make IPP really useful by requiring
    support for at least one common document format, then IPP can truly be
    marketed as an enabling technology rather than being listed along side
    AppSocket, LPD, and 50 other "supported" printing protocols.

    In short, let's make IPP more than just a replacement for LPD.

    > Best Regards,
    > /Paul
    > --
    > Paul Tykodi
    > Principal Consultant
    > TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
    > Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
    > Mobile: 603-866-0712
    > E-mail: ptykodi@tykodi.com
    > WWW: http://www.tykodi.com
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of
    >> Michael R Sweet
    >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:26 PM
    >> To: ipp@pwg.org
    >> Subject: IPP> RFC: Add required document-format values for IPP v2?
    >> All,
    >> In today's telecon I brought up a question about whether it would be
    >> a benefit to define a set of document formats that devices must
    >> support. This would have large benefits for interoperability and the

    >> ability for clients of all shapes and sizes to print without
    >> specialized printer drivers.
    >> The wording I am thinking of is:
    >> IPP v2 devices MUST support one of the following document
    >> formats:
    >> document-format Details
    >> ----------------------------------------------------
    >> application/pdf ISO 32000-1:2008,
    >> ISO 19005-1:2005 (PDF/A),
    >> or PDF/IS?
    >> application/xhtml+xml XHTML-Print
    >> image/jpeg W3C JFIF* encapsulation
    >> image/png ISO 15948, RFC 2083
    >> ----------------------------------------------------
    >> * http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf
    >> I have not included application/postscript in the list because it
    >> isn't standardized beyond simple page descriptions, both in the
    >> official and real-world senses, and in many cases PostScript printers

    >> require some level of device-dependent commands to be used (think PPD

    >> files).
    >> Likewise, I have not included image/tiff since TIFF is a catch-all
    >> for thousands of sub-formats, and the most common sub-formats
    >> (TIFF-G3 and TIFF-G4) are limited to reproduction of monochrome
    >> graphics which make them less useful as a general printing format.
    >> Comments?
    >> --
    >> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System

    Michael R Sweet                        Senior Printing System Engineer

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2008 - 08:40:25 EDT