Hi,
At the risk of adding confusion...
We speak of submitting Jobs with document data by reference (URI)
or by value (attached).
Why not just add "by scan (local scanner)".
What I don't like about the term "Hardcopy Document Object" is that
the word Scan or Scanner isn't there, but this is always the source.
Cheers,
- Ira
PS - I dislike putting titlecase prefixes on Document Object or Job
Object - it muddies readability.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>wrote:
> Mike,****
>> Well, I guess I’ll be quiet now except to say it would be a good time to
> describe the attributes and constraints on all three types of Documents. J
> ****
>> 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:* Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at msweet.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:14 PM
>> *To:* Zehler, Peter
> *Cc:* IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document****
>> ** **
>> Pete,****
>> ** **
>> I guess we are in violent agreement. One comment below.****
>> ** **
>> On 2013-08-06, at 12:54 PM, "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>
> wrote:****
>> ...****
>> This is the difference between a Hardcopy Document and a Hardcopy Document
> /Object/. We need to define the latter and not the former.****
>> <PZ>I see no subclasses of Documents in the PWG Semantic Model or IPP.
> Whether a document is added to a Job by value, by reference, or by
> reference to the output of the scanner subunit, it is still just a Document
> object. ****
>> ** **
>> I am not suggesting a subclass of document.****
>> ** **
>> We already categorize documents as "referenced" and "with attached
> document data". For hardcopy documents we would have a Document Object
> containing description attributes/elements that identify the source and
> properties of the hardcopy document.****
>> ** **
>> I chose to call it a "Hardcopy Document Object" as opposed to a "Document
> Object with Associated Hardcopy Document Input Elements". How the digital
> representation is stored and when exactly the document is scanned are,
> IMHO, implementation specific.****
>> ** **
>> _____________
> Michael Sweet****
>> ** **
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20130807/fe3dd3e7/attachment.html>