Thanks for the reply. I am not suggesting that we add another value for the "finishings" attribute.
Instead I'm trying to find out whether "bind" was put into the IPP spec to satisfy product requirements or whether it accidentally slipped in with the reasoning that "no one needs it now, but its support is optional and someone may find such a generalization useful in the future."
The "bind" value expresses an intent for binding without giving the specifics. Generally, the IPP finishings attribute is specific about a particular binding process, e.g. "staple", "saddle-stitch", "fold". In the JDF world, the latter is a process, and the former is intent. The "bind" value creates a mapping problem (for JDF to support IPP) because the "bind" value must be converted to "staple" or something else by the time the job is actually being processed in JDF.
In the JDF model, the IPP "bind" value is a problem. From the IPP point of view, the JDF model may be too black and white when it separates the world into intent and process. In the real world, intent may be very close to process or very far.
Bob Herriot
----- Original Message -----
From: Zehler, Peter
To: 'Robert Herriot' ; ipp@pwg.org
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: IPP> The "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute
Bob,
Was it added as a generic term for any type of binding (e.g. tape, coil binding, plastic comb) without identifying the bound edge ? I am not aware of the value 'bind' being used for "finishings" in any implementation. Any Printer that offers finishing normally describes the type of finishing with a specific value instead of the generic 'bind'. (see ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.1.pdf) This spec resolves the bind location but still does not qualify the type of binding. Do we need to add some new values/qualifiers to the PWG model?
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
Voice: (716) 265-8755
FAX: (716) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-30E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Herriot [mailto:bob@herriot.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 3:58 AM
To: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: IPP> The "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute
An issue has come up in another standards effort which is trying to map IPP attributes.
The question is about the "bind" value of the IPP "finishings" attribute. It is the least specific value of "finishings".
Does anyone remember why the "bind" value of the "finishings" attribute was put into IPP?
Does anyone implement it?
Bob Herriot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 20 2002 - 17:00:44 EDT