Bob, I appreciate your efforts to help map IPP and JDF. Do you think this
mapping is an effective bridge between the groups? Would it be better for
IPP to "adopt" JDF (i.e. via opaque container)? Can something be done to
influence CIP4 to "embrace" IPP? This is what I had in mind when I (and
several others, on several occasions) recommended a more "formal" relation
between CIP4 and PWG.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Herriot, Robert" <Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
02/19/2001 08:42 PM
To: Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com>, pwg-ipp at pwg.org, pwg at pwg.org
cc: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>, "Herriot, Robert"
<Robert.Herriot at pahv.xerox.com>, "Manros, Carl-Uno B"
<cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>
Subject: RE: PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes
With regard to issues concerning JDF, I have been working with JDF people
to
get IPP into JDF. We added an IDPrinting element, which has a direct
mapping to IPP. I wrote Appendix F which maps JDF to IPP.
Bob Herriot
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 2:24 PM
> To: pwg-ipp at pwg.org; pwg at pwg.org> Cc: hastings; Herriot, Robert; cmanros
> Subject: PWG> IPP Production Printing Attributes
> 3. There are other industry consortia addressing similar
> areas. The CIP4 -
> JDF is one example. There has been no formal PWG effort to
> assure harmony
> or compatibility between JDF and IPP Production Attributes.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
>