Ira,
I view the Printer Capabilities and Print Job Ticket as linked. The
Print Job Ticket spec I'm drafting describes the different uses of the
Print Job Ticket including
1) It is used in a job submission protocol to carry the User's
request.
2) It is used in a PrintJob object to indicate the accepted
request that might have been modified to resolve conflicting or
unsupported elements.
3) It is used in the PrintJob is to carry the applied
PrintJobTickets elements as a PrintJob is processed by the Printer
(i.e., PrintJobReceipt/xxx-applied).
4) It is used by the Printer to indicate the default values for the
Printer (i.e., PrintServiceDefaults/xxx-default).
5) It is used by the Printer to indicate the capabilities of the
Printer (i.e., PrintServiceCapabilities/xxx-supported).
6) It is used by the Printer to indicate the capabilities of the
Printer available without operator intervention (i.e.,
PrintServiceCapabilitiesReady/xxx-ready).
I have not written the capabilities section yet but I see it mainly as a
table indicating the element name and associated capabilities syntax
along with some verbiage to explain the relationships. The capabilities
elements are used to indicate if a Print Job Ticket element is supported
by the Printer and the supported values.
For Cloud printing the Client needs a Print Job Ticket. The Client may
to know the capabilities and defaults. It is preferable to have a
scalable Client that can adapt the capability of a Cloud Printer. Of
course a Client can be written to a limited subset of the model but even
then it may be useful to examine the capabilities to determine if simple
features such as color printing are supported.
I view the Print Job Ticket, its supported elements and allowed values
(i.e., capabilities), and its default values as a single specification.
I'd also point out that Google Cloud Print uses PPD and PSF as a Ticket,
Default and Capabilities as well.
Pete
Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Ira McDonald
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Michael Sweet; Ira McDonald
Cc: cloud at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [Cloud] Revised charter
Hi,
I believe both the title and description of the new spec need changes:
(1) Title should be
"Mapping of PWG Job Ticket to/from MSPS, PPD, and JDF (PJTMAP)"
- per last week's minutes and our F2F discussion, JDF in scope
(2) Document filename should be
"wd-cloudpjtmap10-yyyymmdd"
(3) Description should be strictly limited to PWG Job Ticket (the
only normative reference needed for this mapping spec) and
name MSPS, Adobe PPD, and CIP4 JDF
(4) If our scope is expanded to address PrintServiceCapabilities,
then a SECOND mapping spec should be written, not a muddy
scope job ticket mapping spec
(5) Both directory (charter) and prefix (ch) are wrong in this
Interim draft, per PWG Naming Policy
The term "PWG semantic elements" is far too fuzzy to be source
or target for mapping - also there is no proposal to map the vast
majority of PWG SM/2.0 elements or objects.
The urgent issue is non-PWG *job ticket* usage in Cloud offerings
- capabilities are and will continue to be advertised and discovered
by a number of different means in Cloud Print implementations.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
The changes look good to me; aside from the editorial comments about the
MS licensing of MSPS, and the filename (should be "wd" until approved :)
I think we are good to go...
I will fix the minutes tonight...
On Aug 17, 2011, at 3:33 PM, William Wagner wrote:
In accord with the information in the minutes of the
face-to-face Cloud Meeting minutes of 2 August
(ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/minutes/cloud-f2f-minutes-20110802.pdf)
, I have revised the existing, approved Cloud Imaging WG charter and
posted an interim draft.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/ch-cloud-charter-20110818-rev.pdfftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/ch-cloud-charter-20110818.docx
I sought to make changes in a way consistent with the original.
In the interests of using concall time effectively, I request that those
who prefer different wording or abbreviations post their preferred
version, and that discussion be focused on content. One issue that needs
to be resolved is under comment W1. "Considering that Semantic Model V2
is not yet formalized, but represents the preferred model, what do we
use as a reference? If the to be issued PJT, do we loose mapping to the
SM elements related to printer description?"
Since the charter already separated out the print and
multifunction document activity milestones, I made no changes to these
other than the dates.
(I should also observe the minutes cited above have an incorrect
title and date)
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
________________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20110818/0bc60456/attachment-0001.html>