I agree. I was not suggesting that embellishments should be an IPP attribute in this version.
Number-up typically has some default embellishment and I think that is sufficient for most people.
The primary issue is how to denote that number-up is not wanted. Tom and I suggested 'none' because
1 could suggest number-up default embellishments with 1 page per impression.
Bob Herriot
> From jkm at underscore.com Fri Nov 22 14:16:08 1996
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 96 17:16 EST
> From: jkm at underscore.com (JK Martin)
> To: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Are "embellishments" really desirable right now?
> Sender: ipp-owner at pwg.org> Content-Length: 1307
> X-Lines: 29
>> Bob Herriot wrote:
>> > I agree with Tom that if the values of number-up are really an enum
> > with values of none, 1, 2, 4, then 'none' means normal printing and 1,
> > 2 and 4 mean default embellishments with 1, 2 or 4 pages per
> > impression. The embellishments attribute is an extra if we believe
> > that printers support multiple embellishments.
>> This whole area of "embellishments" (aka formatting styles) is somewhat
> getting away from the "protocol" aspects of IPP, is it not?
>> I mean, what we're talking about here is an entire domain of how
> a job can be formatted independent of content and/or data type.
>> This can be a *real* rathole...unless we can specify clearly usable
> extensibility, preferably by example.
>> If we're not careful, the whole issue of watermarks and generic forms
> processing could loom its head, and if that happens, we'd better be
> able to respond.
>> ...jay
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- JK Martin | Email: jkm at underscore.com --
> -- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
> -- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
> -- Hudson, NH 03015-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>