Bob Pentecost
HP
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hastings [SMTP:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 8:34 AM
To: Bob Pentecost
Cc: THast@cp10.es.xerox.com
Subject: RE: Move "orientation-requested" from J.T. to Operation attribute
group?
Bob,
Ok if I forward this to the IPP DL? I think that you are saying that the
"orientation-requested" (or whatever we call it), could be useful for
submitting PCL documents, especially by reference, if the orientation command
had been (mistakenly) omitted from the PCL for some reason. Correct?
A second reason for using the attribute might be that the default for some
printer isn't what the user wants. Suppose the user has convenient access to a
printer that defaults to B size media with landscape orientation. The user
wants to print a simple portrait PCL file that doesn't have an embedded
portrait orientation instruction. This "orientation-requested" attribute would
allow the user to make sure that the Printer object's
"orientation-requested-default" did not take effect.
I just want to make sure that we write the description so that this attribute
could be used with PCL (and any other PDL where the orientation instruction is
optional in the data).
Ok if I copy your reply and this replay to the IPP DL?
Or maybe you would prefer to forward it yourself?
Thanks,
Tom
At 13:47 01/12/1998 PST, you wrote:
>Tom,
>
>You're right, PCL can optionally contain a command to change the
orientation.
>If the PCL command is not present, the orientation will be the default as
set
>through the printer's control panel or as specified with the PJL settings
that
>precede the job.
>
>Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Hastings [SMTP:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 10:53 AM
>To: ipp@pwg.org
>Cc: Bob Pentecost; Rick, DECprint engineer without portfolio, DTN 297-8350
>(1-508-467-) MRO1-2/K20 23-Sep-1997 1834 -0400; David Kellerman
>Subject: Move "orientation-requested" from J.T. to Operation attribute group?
>
>1. So should we move "orientation-requested" from being a Job Template
>attribute to being an operation attribute, since it applies only to
>documents that don't have orientation embedded in the document
>and is not requesting to override the document?
>
>Job Template attributes are intended to be requests to override what
>is in the document data (as Harry Lewis points out).
>
>If we do make it an operation attribute on Print-Job, Validate-Job,
>Print-URI, Send-Document, and Send-URI, we also need to move
>the corresponding "orientation-requested-default" and
>"orientation-requested-supported" to the Printer object's Printer
>Description group.
>
>(NOTE: such movement will be the fifth attribute that we have moved
>from the Job Template attributes group to the Operation attributes
>and Printer Description attributes group (the other 4 being: "compression",
>"job-k-octets", "job-impressions", and "job-media-sheets".)
>
>
>2a. Should we rename the operation attribute from "orientation-requested"
>to "orientation-default", since it is not a request to override the PDL
>data, but only to be used if the PDL data does not contain an orientation
>instruction.
>
>BTW, I think that this attribute can apply to other PDLs, than 'text/plain'
>which can NEVER contain an orientation instruction. However, I suspect
>that other PDLs, such as PCL and DEC-PPL3, can have an OPTIONAL
>orientation embedded instruction. (Hence the cc list). When a document
>is being printed in which the optional instruction was omitted, the
>"orientation-default" attribute could be used to control the orienation.
>Therefore, the semantics are exactly those of any "xxx-default" attribute,
>except that this attribute is being supplied by the client, instead of
>the Printer object.
>
>If we do rename the atribute, then the corresponding Printer Description
>attributes would become: "orientation-default-default" and
>"orientation-default-suppoted".
>
>
>2b. Or could we say that the Printer Description attribute is really the
>same as the operation attribute, since they have the same semantics
>and so call the Printer Description attributes:
>
> "orientation-default" and "orientation-default-supported"?
>
>We currently have the "job-name" as an operation attribute which is
>the same as the "job-name" Job description attribute, so having an
>attribute with the same name in these two different groups would
>be the same idea for the "orientation-default" operation attribute.
>
>We've agreed that we can't have the same name for an attribute in the
>Job Template attribute group and any other group.
>
>Comments?
>
>Tom
>
>
>