SM> Remaining issue in Document object spec

SM> Remaining issue in Document object spec

Dennis Carney dcarney at us.ibm.com
Tue Jul 1 17:35:19 EDT 2003





Pete,

It is easy for me to say :-), but I believe that we *did* resolve this
issue, in favor of my proposal.

The following appeared on the IPP mailing list:

   <dmc>
   Maybe I'm not understanding. Can't you specify the "copies" attribute at

   the Document level? Therefore, you could have a Job that was made up of
   1
   copy of Document 1, 3 copies of Document 2, and 1 copy of Document 3,
   couldn't you? If you did, you might want to know if the 3 copies of Doc2

   were collated or uncollated. I must be missing something--is there a
   section that would straighten me out?
   </dmc>
   <th>
   Now I see what you are suggesting. I suppose for consistency we could
   have
   a "collation-type" as a Document Template attribute. As long as it is
   clear
   that an implementation can implement the "job-collation-type" Job
   Template
   attribute without having to do the "collation-type" Document Template
   attribute (and vice versa).
   </th>

And I *thought* I remembered being on a call where Tom and Ira agreed with
the concept.

Anybody remember anything different?

Dennis


|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Zehler, Peter"  |
|         |           <PZehler at crt.xero|
|         |           x.com>           |
|         |           Sent by:         |
|         |           owner-sm at pwg.org |
|         |                            |
|         |                            |
|         |           07/01/03 11:14 AM|
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       "IPP Discussion List (IPP at pwg.org)" <IPP at pwg.org>                                                |
  |       cc:       "PWG Semantic Model WG (sm at pwg.org)" <sm at pwg.org>                                                |
  |       Subject:  SM> Remaining issue in Document object spec                                                      |
  |                                                                                                                  |
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




All,


I did not capture the resolution (if any) on the following issue from
Dennis Carney.


ISSUE:


I definitely believe that we need a "Document-equivalent" of
job-collation-type.  It would have different semantics, since the Job level
semantics include the concept of documents, but I believe that since it is
useful to know whether a Job is doing collated or uncollated copies, it
would also be useful to know the same for Documents.


Proposed resolutions:


<TH>I disagree.  If we did add a Document attribute, it would need to have
the same value as at the Job Level, since you can't collate some documents
and not collate other documents in the same job.  We don't duplicate on the
Document object other Job level attributes that apply to the job as a
whole, such as "job-name", "job-hold", "job-priority",
"job-finishing".</TH>


Before I put the updated document I would like to get consensus.  Please
respond on the IPP list.


Opinions?


Pete


                        Peter Zehler


                        XEROX


                        Xerox Innovation Group


                        Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com


                        Voice:    (585) 265-8755


                        FAX:      (585) 422-7961


                        US Mail: Peter Zehler


                                      Xerox Corp.


                                      800 Phillips Rd.


                                      M/S 128-25E


                                      Webster NY, 14580-9701









More information about the Sm mailing list