Hi Glen,
A conforming PrintService that supports PWG standards either:
(1) Is an IPP Printer (a *logical* print service); or
(2) Is a PWG SM implementation of PrintService.
In either case they are bound by IPP semantics as those are
the normative basis of the PWG Semantic Model.
Some other PrintService that accepts a PJT may make other
choices, but then interoperability across gateways will suffer.
Cheers,
- Ira
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 Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Petrie, Glen <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>wrote:
> ** ** ** ** ** **
>> Ira****
>> ** **
>> Does a conforming Print Service accepting a PWG:PJT have to behave
> accordingly!!!???? (It is not an IPP printer!)****
>> ** **
>> glen****
>> ** **
> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:54 AM
> *To:* Petrie, Glen; Ira McDonald
> *Cc:* Michael Sweet; mfd at pwg.org>> *Subject:* Re: [MFD] Question on Resolution Versus Qaulity
> ****
>> ** **
>> Hi Glen,
>> I see the logic of your comments.
>> But IPP/2.0 Second Edition *did* specifically resolve this
> "quality" versus "resolution" question based on quite a lot
> of mailing list and face-to-face discussion. This is stated
> in on page 21, section 6.2, item 8 of PWG 5100.12.
>> So a conforming IPP Printer has to behave accordingly.
>> We can add more discussion in IPP JPS3, if that seems
> appropriate, but we really can't reverse the IPP/2.0 SE,
> because that would not be backward compatible.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> 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/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 Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Petrie, Glen <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>
> wrote:****
>> Mike,****
>> ****
>> Interesting but I still believe my conclusions support both a simple and
> sophisticated user-centric model. A simple user-centric model will always
> use the “quality” setting and, for added “control”, will set “content type”
> to get the desired output. Sophisticated users will want to control the
> finer details and, thus, may want a specific resolution. ****
>> ****
>> As to “draft” operations or any other quality setting operations: in
> general, no print vendor is going to use simpler/faster dithers or
> color-transform or not perform print row interleaving, if it reduces the
> overall printed quality of the output simply because the user set quality
> setting to draft/normal/high in a Print Client. There would be
> insignificant amount of processing required; no need to support multiple
> dither/color transforms routines; and an unnoticeable amount of additional
> (if any) overall print time. If a user specifies a resolution versus
> quality; then, saving ink was not his/her intent; he/she wants a specific
> resolution for his/her specific reason. While bi-directional versus
> uni-directional printing are affected by quality settings; print service
> internal selection (not user set) would also use content-type (for example;
> high-quality text (bi) versus high-quality photo(uni)) which, of course, bi
> versus uni, can also be done as a function of resolution and the
> content-type.****
>> ****
>> The constraint is solved by;****
>> ****
>> 1. The content-type MUST be set; ****
>>> 1. The default could be “text and graphic”****
>>> 1. If user sets resolution; then the Print Services uses this
> resolution along with content-type. The Print Service will ignore any
> quality-setting and set any internal processing based on resolution and
> content-type only. ****
>>> 1. If the resolution set is not supported; then return an error.
> (How this could occur from a print client that received printer capability
> data is unknown but just in-case the user is allowed to “type” in any
> resolution they want!) ****
>>> 1. If user set quality but not resolution, then****
>>> 1. The Print Service uses content-type and quality-setting to
> determine a resolution and internal processing.****
>> ****
>> IMHO, the user must always be in control. Setting resolution is more
> specific than setting quality, since quality is qualitative versus
> quantitative; thus, if a user sets a resolution; then that what should be
> done. ****
>> ****
>> I think we will have to agree to disagree and simply move on!****
>> ****
>> glen****
>> ****
>> ****
> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:00 PM****
>>> *To:* Petrie, Glen
> *Cc:* mfd at pwg.org> *Subject:* Re: [MFD] Question on Resolution Versus Qaulity****
>> ****
>> Glen,****
>> ****
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Petrie, Glen wrote:****
>> Conceptually there is no reason a printer could not support a draft
> mode for multiple resolutions (and this is in fact the case in CUPS/Mac OS
> X), so preventing both from being specified will do a disservice to the
> user and printer/driver.****
>> ****
>> [gwp] So if we have “draft” at 75, 150, 300; and the user can select both
> “draft” and 300; then what is the value of “draft” to the Print Service
> since the Print Service was told to print at 300 dpi.****
>> ****
>> "Draft" might select (for example) bidirectional printing on an inkjet
> with no interleaving of dot rows. It could also use a simpler/faster
> dithering algorithm, simpler/faster color transform, use less inks (i.e.
> just CMYK instead of CMYKcmk), etc.****
>> ****
>> [gwp] Users are more likely to select “quality” equals “draft” and
> “contentOptimize” equals “photo” and not a dpi (ops: resolution). If a
> user ‘really understands’ the Print Service performance for differing dpi’s
> (again ops: resolution’s); then “quality” should never win because the user
> knows exactly what dpi they want!****
>> ****
>> Users do not know how quality and resolution interact, and in the absence
> of the JPS3 mechanisms for doing constraint resolution there is no way for
> the client to know either.****
>> ****
>> Quality != Resolution. They may be related, and there may in fact be
> constraints that cause a particular combination to conflict, but they are
> not mutually exclusive and express separate intent. The IPP/2.0
> recommendation to prefer Quality over Resolution when there is a conflict
> is a pragmatic approach to automatic conflict resolution.****
>> ****
>> [gwp] Print-Resolution is a function of both Quality AND
> Content-Optimize. Any printer today can determine a resolution from these
> two values. If a user specifies a resolution then the Print Service should
> use the resolution (resolution is always the winner) since the user is
> stating they want the specified resolution that gives them a desired
> quality for the content!****
>> ****
>> and if that resolution is supported by the printer then by all means it
> should use it! But if not, the printer should let the client know it can't
> use that resolution and use the closest resolution instead...****
>> ** **
>> [gwp] The conclusion is then****
>> ****
>> 1. Specified Resolution wins over “Quality” - always, since the User
> specified ‘use this resolution”.****
>> ****
>> The user specified "use this quality". One has to win, and IMHO (and based
> on what we agreed to and approved in IPP/2.0 SE) Quality wins over
> Resolution.****
>> ****
>>> 1. ****
> 2. Content-Optimize MUST be required – for a printer to properly
> determine the correct resolution when resolution is not specified.****
>> ****
>> That's what defaults are for...****
>> ** **
>> 1. ****
> 2. Print-Quality is [Quality (-Intent) + Content-Optimize ] or [
> Resolution] but not both.****
>> ****
>> Again, these elements are related but not mutually exclusive.****
>> ****
>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair****
>> ****
>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. ****
>>> _______________________________________________
> mfd mailing list
>mfd at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd****>> ** **
>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20120202/b2193426/attachment-0002.html>