>I agree that a show of public interest is valuable on a Finisher MIB,
>but I assumed that since the PWG decided NOT to pursue the Finisher
>sub-unit two years ago (reiterated in notes from others this morning),
>that the interest remained low.
It's not that the PWG was not interested in Finishing. The PWG decided
not to pursue Finishing, Jobs, and Resources (like fonts) in order to
scope the Printer MIB to an achievable goal. Also, LMO had a broader
set of "finishing experts" on board. Given that I was chair of LMO at the
time, and editor of the DMI Printer MIF, I think lots of folks expected me
to map the LMO DMI finisher work back into the Printer MIB at some point.
I haven't done so because MIB/MIF mappings never really turned out to be
as slick as advertised and I think the Printer MIB needs something a bit
more terse than LMO.
>I thought Jeff might like to work with Xerox folks to come up with a
>'prototype' submission to the PWG for consideration as a basis for
>Finisher MIB development. The strong reliance of the PWG on direct
>face-to-face meetings makes it hard or impossible for many interested
>parties to participate (eg, Xerox would NEVER pay for my travel to a
>PWG meeting, because I'm an independent consultant).
There is nothing wrong, IMHO, with your suggestion. There is no need for
a face-to-face meeting, necessarily. It's just that, when the PWG does
meet, certain issues can be worked out better in this forum. Good preparation
is key, however, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
>If others are interested in a 'simple' Finisher MIB (for desktop
>products) or a 'big' Finisher MIB (for high-end products), PLEASE
>state your interest.
I think we should request a FIN reflector be set up and let the discussion,
submission etc. begin.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems