Hi Pete,
But what Mike just said is that it is feasible to implement 'guaranteed'
for PWG Raster and JPEG, but hard for PDF, PostScript, PCL, etc.
I agree with Mike. There are a lot of embedded processing features
in these "higher-level" PDLs that mean really supporting 'guaranteed'
requires access to (and probably modification of) the source code of
the PDL interpreters.
And 'attempted' isn't a useful feature (for Clients), because it's basically
unreliable.
Although one could do tricks with Client submitting a Job on hold and
Printer sending "successful-ok-ignored-or-substituted-attributes" (so
that the client could tell that the override was partial and WHERE it
wasn't performed).
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
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, May 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>wrote:
> All,
>> I don’t believe that that the definition of 'guaranteed' is so convoluted
> that it is not practical to implement. It is implemented in some high end
> production environments. I believe that 'guaranteed' value is applicable
> to a small segment of the printing market and not applicable to the IPP
> everywhere or PWG Raster discussion.
>> Pete
>>>> Peter Zehler
>> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com> Office: +1 (585) 265-8755
>> Mobile: +1 (585) 329-9508
> FAX: +1 (585) 265-7441
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 128-25E
> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>>>> *From:* ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Ira
> McDonald
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:48 PM
> *To:* William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
>> *Cc:* ipp at pwg.org> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] Potential errata/update for PWG Raster Format and/or
> IPP Everywhere specs
>>>> Hi,
>> I agree with Bill's comments.
>> I suggest that the Implementors Guide should document that the intended
>> meaning of 'attempted' in RFC 2911 was and is 'best-effort'. There is no
>> wiggle room in RFC 2911 (page 139), in my reading, that the Printer can
> say 'attempted' and then NOT make the attempt.
>> I agree that making 'attempted' REQUIRED is cold comfort to Clients.
>>> I suggest that the definition of 'guaranteed' (NOT defined in RFC 2911,
> but rather in section 11 of JSP2, PWG 5100.11-2010) is so convoluted
>> that it is not practical to implement.
>> Cheers,
>> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://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, May 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> As Ira suggests, I believe that it is very difficult to “guarantee”
> successful override, considering the potential complexity and variations in
> the PDL. But ‘attempted’ is squishy and making it REQUIRED might tempt
> some to report ‘attempted’ even when the attempt is halfhearted (or
> non-existent). That would make the value even more unreliable. Perhaps we
> should have allowed a value of ‘best effort’ meaning that the printer will
> really try. But I think making ‘attempted’ a minimum REQUIRED response may
> just increase uncertainty. Better that the User understand that he is stuck
> with what is in the PDL if there is not very good likelihood that the
> overrides will be completely successful.
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Wagner
>>>> *From:* ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Ira
> McDonald
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:42 AM
> *To:* Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect); Ira McDonald
> *Cc:* <ipp at pwg.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] Potential errata/update for PWG Raster Format and/or
> IPP Everywhere specs
>>>> Hi Smith,
>> We've never made "pdl-override-supported" have 'guaranteed' as REQUIRED
>> (even in IPP/2.1 or IPP/2.2 levels), because it's binary.
>> If you claim that your Printer supports 'guaranteed' then you have to be
> able to
> *successfully* intercept and override everything in your interpreters
> (vanishingly
> unlikely in PDF, for example).
>>>> I agree with Mike that I've never seen a printer in the wild that actually
> supported
>> 'guaranteed'.
>> I also agree that should make 'attempted' a REQUIRED value and 'guaranteed'
>> a RECOMMENDED value (explaining in the Implementors Guide that there are
>> practical limitations w/ third-party interpreters to perfect override).
>> Cheers,
>> - Ira
>>>> Cheers,
>> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://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, May 21, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <
>smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> Since “attempted” is so squishy, why not mandate “guaranteed”? Including
> “attempted” seems like a loophole.
>> Smith
>> /**
> Smith Kennedy
> ATB Wireless Architect - PPS
> Hewlett-Packard Co.
> */
>>>>> On 2014-05-21, at 7:42 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> > All,
> >
> > It has come to my attention that neither the IPP Everywhere nor the PWG
> Raster Format specs explicitly call out required values for the
> "pdl-override-supported" Printer attribute. This attribute specifies
> whether the Printer can override embedded job ticket information (such as
> media size) when requested in a Job via the "ipp-attribute-fidelity" or
> "job-mandatory-attributes" Job Template attributes.
> >
> > Generally speaking, Printers SHOULD support PDL override for the
> standard PDLs in IPP Everywhere, including PWG Raster, JPEG, and PDF.
> Typically this means forcing prints to a single media/size or forcing
> simplex/duplex output, and is particularly important for JPEG.
> >
> > My recommendation is for us to add the following conformance statement
> in a future revision of the IPP Everywhere specification:
> >
> > pdl-override-supported (type2 keyword)
> >
> > When reporting capabilities for the 'application/pdf', 'image/jpeg',
> or 'image/pwg-raster'
> > MIME media types, Printers MUST report either 'attempted' or
> 'guaranteed' for the
> > "pdl-override-supported" Printer attribute,
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> >
>> > _______________________________________________
> > ipp mailing list
> > ipp at pwg.org> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140521/cc679d55/attachment.html>