attachment-0001
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for the reply. I am not suggesting
that we add another value for the "finishings" attribute.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Herriot</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=PZehler@crt.xerox.com href="mailto:PZehler@crt.xerox.com">Zehler,
Peter</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=bob@herriot.com
href="mailto:bob@herriot.com">'Robert Herriot'</A> ; <A title=ipp@pwg.org
href="mailto:ipp@pwg.org">ipp@pwg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 20, 2002 8:49 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: IPP> The "bind" value of
the "finishings" attribute</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=014192115-20052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Bob,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=014192115-20052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN class=014192115-20052002><FONT face=Arial
size=2>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 </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=014192115-20052002><FONT
face=Arial size=2><A
href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.1.pdf">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.1.pdf</A>)
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?</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=014192115-20052002></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=014192115-20052002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Pete</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<P><FONT face=Impact>Peter Zehler</FONT> <BR><FONT face=XeroxPeopleNet
color=#ff0000>XEROX</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Xerox
Architecture Center</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Email:
PZehler@crt.xerox.com</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Voice: (716) 265-8755</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>FAX:
(716) 265-8871</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>US Mail: Peter Zehler</FONT>
<UL>
<P><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Xerox Corp.</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2> 800 Phillips
Rd.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2> M/S 128-30E</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Webster NY,
14580-9701</FONT> </P></UL></UL></UL></UL></UL>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Robert Herriot
[mailto:bob@herriot.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, May 19, 2002 3:58
AM<BR><B>To:</B> ipp@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> IPP> The "bind" value of
the "finishings" attribute<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>An issue has come up in another standards
effort which is trying to map IPP attributes. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>The question is about t</FONT><FONT
size=2>he "bind" value of the IPP "finishings" attribute. It is the least
specific value of "finishings".</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Does anyone remember why the "bind" value of
the "finishings" attribute was put into IPP? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Does anyone implement it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob
Herriot</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>