attachment-0001

From ipp-owner  Tue Jul  1 13:45:24 2003 Received: from palrel13.hp.com (palrel13.hp.com [156.153.255.238])                 by pwg.org (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h61HjOL16828                 for <ipp@pwg.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xparelay2.ptp.hp.com (xparelay2.ptp.hp.com [15.1.28.65])                 by palrel13.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP                 id 925AF1C00B05; Tue,  1 Jul 2003 10:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xpabh3.ptp.hp.com (xpabh3.ptp.hp.com [15.1.28.63])                 by xparelay2.ptp.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP                 id D6CE61C00AD9; Tue,  1 Jul 2003 10:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by xpabh3.ptp.hp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)                 id <N5CMGF5V>; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: <A134E2426B46D711BB4B000347AE6E7CAA599E@xvan02.vcd.hp.com> From: "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <bobt@hp.com> To: Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmx.net> Cc: printing-driver@freestandards.org, Claudia Alimpich <alimpich@us.ibm.com>,   ipp@pwg.org, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org Subject: RE: [printing-driver] RE: [printing-jobticket] Proposal to add ne                  w IPP print-optimize attribute Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:45:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain My concern is in creating an extra attribute for "other stuff" that is poorly distinguished from PrintQuality.  Let's look at the suggested enumerations:         'image': optimize for image clarity         'photo': optimize for photo clarity         'text': optimize for text clarity         'text-and-image': optimize for both text and image clarity         'save-toner': optimize for minimal toner usage         'speed': optimize for printing speed and from PrintQuality:         'draft': lowest quality available on the printer         'normal': normal or intermediate quality on the printer         'high': highest quality available on the printer There really are a few of semantic concepts in here: print quality: bad <-> good performance: slow <-> fast marker/toner/ink usage: cheap <-> expense content metadata hints: image, photo, text, text-and-image, etc. Realize though that the semantics of things like "print with bad quality", "print with lousy performance", or "use lots of extra toner" don't make any practical sense:  what you're really trying to do is give the service/device feedback on the tradeoffs of PQ/performance/marker usage.  So, while the PrintQuality definitions just officially talks about "quality", that's not what they really are in practice.  What is more realistic is: 'draft': fast & cheap - sacrifice print quality for speed and low marker usage 'normal': balance - decent print quality with good speed and moderate marker usage 'high': look good - optimize print quality at the expense of speed and marker usage Many in the industry have extended this list (IPP extension rules notwithstanding) for things like "econofast" and "bestphoto" - which are merely additional tradeoff combinations. So I'd argue that PrintQuality is already PrintOptimize - they are effectively doing the same thing, just with different sets of enumerations. I would much rather we extend the enumerations than create another attribute to do what we've already done. As for the "content metadata hints" - if the intent is a different PW-performance-marker usage tradeoff, I'd add them to the PrintQuality enumeration.  If we're really trying to provide hints about the coming document content, then they should be an attribute of the document object, since they are document metadata.  Realize also that this information is often object specific - optimization is often done to different objects on the same page of a document (e.g., different halftoning for an image on a page vs. the bar chart on the same page).  I don't think we want to go very far down the path of document content metadata here - this could get very messy. As a separate note, not all printers use "toner" - save-toner should probably be something like "save-marker" thanks, bt > -----Original Message----- > From: Till Kamppeter [mailto:till.kamppeter@gmx.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:19 PM > To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) > Cc: printing-driver@freestandards.org; Claudia Alimpich; > ipp@pwg.org; printing-jobticket@freestandards.org > Subject: Re: [printing-driver] RE: [printing-jobticket] > Proposal to add ne w IPP print-optimize attribute > > > TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > To me, #2 is the issue to really focus on: is this really > two semantic > > concepts, or one?  If any of these values are semantically > really just > > additional enumerations for > > print-quality, I'd much rather we fix this than do the split it. > > > > As for #2, what "semantic meaning would be lost or mixed" > if we just > > extended the enumeration for print-quality?  Although you can, by > > having these as two attributes, specify "draft" and "photo" - in > > practice, this is virtually never done: "photo" is usually > specified > > in one of a couple ways: > > - my media type (i.e., photo-glossy paper model #C239847A) > > - PrintQuality (quality = Photo4800DPI) - i.e., another > print-quality > > enumeration If it's something other than one of these, it's usually > > what we call in PSI capabilities a "macro feature" - i.e., > it's not a > > real attribute sent to the device, but a feature defined as a macro > > combination of other features - which I don't think is a concept > > currently supported by IPP. > > > > These "macro feature"s I have already implemented in Foomatic as the > so-called "composite options". The "PrintoutMode" option in GIMP-Print > for example controls 5 options of GIMP-Print when the user > chooses out > of Draft, Fraft.Garyscale, Normal, Normal.Garyscale, High, > High.Grayscale, VeryHigh, VeryHigh.Grayscale, Photo, Photo.Grayscale. > > > Fundamentally, "refines the value specified by the print-quality" > > seems like a weak semantic differentiation, and I believe it is > > inconsistent with how extensions to the print-quality concept have > > been applied in at least > the inkjet > > segment of > > the market. > > > > The "PrintoutMode"option is both a quality and an intent option. What > is tried here in this discussion is to have two options, once quality > (draft, normal, high, ...) and intent (text, image, text-with-image, > photo, toner-saving). Most drivers have too few adjustment > possibilities > to really fill the matrix of all intent/quality combinations, > probably > only GIMP-Print will hardly serve with enough settings. For > most drivers > the one-dimensional "PrintoutMode" (or however to call it) is > enough to > provide a newbie-friendly quick-setup option (which plays the > same roll > as the setting for Normal, Macro, Sports, Night shot ... on > some digital > cameras). It also must always be possible to set the > individual options > of the driver, so that advanced users can get all out of the > driver (as > implemented in Foomatic). > >     Till >