I haven't had a chance to analyze the complete new proposal for
multiple-document-handling, but had the following comments on the
comments at the end:
>[Note that in the last case, the internal conflict in the description
>noted above was resolved by removing the apparently un-intented SHALL
>NOT clause.
1. The SHALL NOT was introduced in the Sept 26 version when adding the
entire sentence to the third value to make it like the second value.
I agree that the NOT should be removed in the sentence:
"The Printer SHALL NOT force each document copy to start on a new sheet."
so that the third value has the same sentence as the second value.
> With this change, the last case becomes the same as the
>first case with respect to ordering and media sheet generation, but
>different with respect to finishing.]
2. I disagreed slightly with the characterization of the three values:
'single-document'
'separate-documents-uncollatted-copies'
'separate-documents-collated-copies'
I believe that the last case becomes the same as the first case with
respect to ordering of pages, but NOT media sheet generation, since the
first case will put the first page of the next document on the back side
of a sheet if an odd number of pages have been produced so far for the job,
while the third case always force the next document or document copy on to
a new sheet. Perhaps you meant the "ordering of pages and the ordering of
media sheet generation".
>>[Note also the this text does not say anything about the placement of
>job-sheets because the prior text also did not say anything
>about the placement of job-sheets.]
3. The September 26 version deleted the sentences about "slip sheets"
from all three values since IPP doesn't have a way for a client to specify
that a slip sheet is to be placed anywhere.
ISO DPA we defined a whole bunch of different
values for the "job-sheet" attribute that controlled whether extra (slip)
sheets were introduced between documents and/or between copies. We could
register additional values for the "job-sheet" attribute (after V1.0).
Or we could register an IPP attribute that controls slip sheets
(after V1.0), if that is desired.
Here is Steve's entire message for context (with no comments inserted):
At 21:13 10/23/1997 PDT, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>[The terminology in this section seems to muddle "document" meaning
>document data and "document" meaning what has finishing operations
>applied to it. For this reason the entire section has been redone.]
>>The current text is:
>> 4.2.6 multiple-document-handling (type2 keyword)
>> This job attribute is relevant only if a job consists of two
> or more documents. It controls finishing operations, and job-
> sheet placement. When the copies attribute exceeds 1, it
> also controls the order of documents.
>> Standard values are:
>> 'single-document': If the files for the job are a and
> b, then files a and b SHALL be treated as a single
> document for finishing operations. The Printer
> SHALL NOT force each document to start on a new
> page or new media sheet. If more than one copy is
> made, the ordering SHALL be a, b, a, b,...., and
> the Printer SHALL force each copy to start on a
> new sheet.
> 'separate-documents-uncollated-copies': If the files
> for the job are a and b, then each file SHALL be
> treated as a single document for finishing
> operations. The Printer shall force each document
> copy to start on a new sheet. If more than one
> copy is made, the ordering SHALL be a, a, b, b,
> ....
> 'separate-documents-collated-copies': If the files for
> the job are a and b, then each file SHALL be
> treated as a single document for finishing
> operations. The Printer SHALL NOT force each
> document copy to start on a new sheet. If more
> than one copy is made, the ordering SHALL be a,
> b, a, b, ...., and the Printer shall force each
> document copy to start on a new sheet .
>>>[Note the use of "files" instead of "document data" which is used in the
>operation descriptions in 3.2 and 3.3; the mis-use of "document" noted
>above and the confusion of pages and media sheets. Nothing is said in
>these descriptions about the placement of job-sheets. Finally, I do not
>understand the final case at all; it says "each file SHALL be treated as
>a single document for finishing operations. The Printer SHALL NOT force
>each document copy to start on a new sheet. There is no way if parts of
>two files are place on opposite sides of the same sheet (because of the
>SHALL NOT) that they will be finished separately. I am also not really
>sure which use of "document" is being used in the SHALL NOT clause.
>> This suggests the following revision of the section. Note that I had to
>introduce a somewhat awkward term, "set of media sheets" for the second
>(mis-) use of "document" above.]
>>> 4.2.6 multiple-document-handling (type2 keyword)
>> This job attribute is relevant only if a job consists of two or more
> documents. The attribute controls finishing operations and the placement
> of print-stream pages into imposed pages and onto media sheets. When
> the value of the "copies" attribute exceeds 1, it also controls the
> order in which the copies that result from processing the documents are
> produced. For the purposes of this explanations, if "a" represents an
> instance of document data, then the result of processing the data in
> document "a" is a sequence of media sheets represented by "a'".
>> Standard values are:
>> 'single-document': If a Job object has multiple documents, say the
> document data is called a and b, then the result of processing
> all the document data (a and then b) SHALL be treated as a
> single sequence of media sheets for finishing operations; that is,
> finishing would be performed on the concatenation of the
> seqeunces a',b'. The Printer SHALL NOT force the data in each
> document instance to be formatted onto a new print-stream
> page, nor to start a new imposed page or a new media sheet. If
> more than one copy is made, the ordering of the sets of media
> sheets resulting from processing the document data SHALL be
> a', b', a', b',...., and the Printer SHALL force each copy to
> start on a new media sheet.
> 'separate-documents-uncollated-copies': If a Job object has
> multiple documents, say the document data is called a and b,
> then the result of processing the data in each document
> instance SHALL be treated as a single sequence of media sheets for
> finishing operations; that is, the sets a' and b' would each
> be finished separately. The Printer SHALL force each copy of the
> result of process the data in a single document to start on a
> new media sheet. If more than one copy is made, the ordering
> of the sets of media sheets resulting from processing the
> document data SHALL be a', a', b', b' ....
> 'separate-documents-collated-copies': If a Job object has multiple
> documents, say the document data is called a and b, then the
> result of processing the data in each document instance SHALL
> be treated as a single sequence of media sheets for finishing
> operations; that is, the sets a' and b' would each be finished
> separately. If more than one copy is made, the ordering of the
> sets of media sheets resulting from processing the document
> data SHALL be a', b', a', b', ...., and the Printer SHALL
> force each document copy to start on a new sheet .
>>>[Note that in the last case, the internal conflict in the description
>noted above was resolved by removing the apparently un-intented SHALL
>NOT clause. With this change, the last case becomes the same as the
>first case with respect to ordering and media sheet generation, but
>different with respect to finishing.]
>>[Note also the this text does not say anything about the placement of
>job-sheets because the prior text also did not say anything
>about the placement of job-sheets.]
>>