Chris,
I think it would still be appropriate to support both finishings and finishings-col for new *kinds* of finishings, but IMHO we shouldn't add enum values for variations of existing finishings.
> On Oct 8, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Rizzo, Christopher <Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com> wrote:
>> Dear Ladies and Gents,
>> Is it possible to request (is PWG IPP Workgroup accepting) proposals for new enums for IPP Finishing functionality that is not currently supported by the existing enums, so that the new functionality can be supported thru finishings, finishings-supported, etc.?
>> Or can any new IPP Finishing functionality only be implemented via the newer finishings-col, finishings-col-supported, and finishings-col-database?
>> Thanks,
> Chris
>> Christopher Rizzo
> Xerox Corporation
> GDG/Discovery/Advance Technology
> 26600 SW Parkway Ave.
> Suite 200
> Wilsonville, OR 97070-9251
> Phone: (503) 582-7577
> Intelnet: 8*872-7577
> Cube: 7060-Z22-C
> Email: Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>> "The realization came over me with full force that a good part of the remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own programs."
> -Maurice Wilkes, Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer