Please send me a list of holes in IDPrinting of JDF. It would be good to
have more people review it and distribute comments.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:20 PM
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: owner-pwg@pwg.org; pwg@pwg.org; pwg-ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes
>
>
> I agree with the benefit of cross referencing and
> co-developing (portions
> of the IPP and JDF standards). But this sounds like Chicken
> and Egg. I see
> lots of holes in Appx F. This is not a criticism of Bob's
> work. It's a
> basic question of who's driving what.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
> 02/20/2001 05:40 PM
>
>
> To: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
> cc: owner-pwg@pwg.org, pwg@pwg.org, pwg-ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production
> Printing Attributes
>
>
>
> Harry,
>
> I think that it is a good time to publish the PWG Production Printing
> extensions as a PWG Draft standard, because of its
> relationship with JDF
> which is just about to publish its 1.0 version. Having the
> PWG Production
> Printing Instructions being progressed through the PWG (and
> they've past
> Last Call - twice), was the major reason that we were able to
> get JDF to
> add
> Integrated Digital Printing (called IDPrinting) process into
> JDF and to
> add
> the Appendix that maps IDPrinting to IPP.
>
> The printing part of JDF is primarily for production printing.
>
> Thus IPP and the PWG Production Printing extensions have had
> an impact on
> JDF and the Appendix maps JDF to IPP, including the PWG Production
> Printing
> extensions. If the PWG doesn't go forward with publishing the PWG
> Production Printing standard, then the JDF folks will probably have to
> delete their appendix and most of the IDPrinting process.
> That would be a
> real step backward and would leave IPP and JDF with no commonality.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 16:28
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: owner-pwg@pwg.org; pwg@pwg.org; pwg-ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes
>
>
> Nonetheless, with JDF still in development, is this a good time to
> progress such a "production" intensive extension to IPP?
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
> Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
> 02/20/2001 04:18 PM
>
>
> To: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
> cc: pwg-ipp@pwg.org, pwg@pwg.org
> Subject: PWG> RE: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing
> Attributes
>
>
>
> Harry,
>
> The PWG Production Printing documents have been published
> since January
> 2000
> on the PWG server.
>
> However, we didn't really address them until the September
> meeting. The
> minutes contain the following:
>
> 2.5 Production Printing
>
> Carl-Uno referenced the JDF activity
> [www.job-definition-format.org] that
> has received much attention at the Seybold Conference. According to
> Carl-Uno, there is an ongoing attempt to get the JDF effort
> to adopt the
> IPP
> semantics.
>
> 2.6 Production Printing Attributes
>
> Tom Hastings led a review of the latest draft of the
> Production Printing
> Attributes document:
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_PPE/pwg-ipp-prod-print-set1-
> 000605.pdf
> It was suggested that a "force new sheet" attribute should be added. A
> capability for defining "flush-left/right/top/bottom" was
> also suggested.
>
> It was agreed that "x-image-auto-center" and
> "y-image-auto-center" will be
> replaced by "x-image-position" (left/right/center) and
> "y-image-position"
> (top/bottom).
>
> "Job-recipient-name" and "media-weight-english" were removed from the
> document.
>
> It was suggested that the protocol include the specification
> of both input
> tray and media size. A "media-by-tray" attribute will be added.
>
> During the review, Tom noted various other minor
> modifications that were
> suggested and agreed. He will update the document and issue
> the next draft
> before a PWG Last Call.
>
> 3.4 Presentation Direction
>
> Bob explained two new [Job Template]
> attributes-"presentation-direction-requested" and
> "presentation-direction-number-up"-that he proposes for additional
> control.
>
> It was agreed that presentation-direction (as it applies to
> number-up)
> will
> be included in the updated Production Printing Attributes document.
>
>
>
> We also reviewed the document again at the December IPP WG
> meeting (which
> you were unable to attend). Those minutes contain:
>
> 2. Administrivia
> · Final voting process to start to become PWG standards:
> * IPP Production Printing Attributes - Set1
> * IPP Override Attributes for Documents and Pages
> * IPP "output-bin" attribute extension
> * IPP "finishings" attribute values extension
>
> 10.1 IPP Production Printing Attributes - Set1
>
> Tom Hastings announced that Xerox has discovered a few problems with
> Impression Image Shifting Attributes in this document and
> would like to
> delay its progression to PWG Standard. They would like to include more
> terms, attributes, and clarifications in Section 3.18. Tom
> explained the
> new
> attributes and described several methods of placing
> impressions on paper.
> The proposed modifications have not yet been distributed for review,
> but Tom plans to issue a new draft soon.
>
> We discussed the image shifting by drawing pictures on the flip chart
> easel
> to verify that the distinctions between imposition and
> signature printing
> agreed with industry practice.
> I hope this helps answer your concerns about the time we've
> spent on them.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 14:24
> To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org; pwg@pwg.org
> Cc: hastings; Herriot, Robert; cmanros
> Subject: PWG-IPP> IPP Production Printing Attributes
>
>
> As the vote for IPP Production Attributes nears, I would like
> to reiterate
>
>
> several concerns I have had throughout the life of this draft.
>
> 1. As a PWG draft, this topic does not seem to have received the same
> level of attention and discussion (ex. in f2f meetings or on
> the wire) as
> have the IETF related efforts (Notifications, Security,
> Bakeoff's etc.).
> While the document has received a couple short reviews, it is
> my opinion
> that these have been overshadowed by broader issues at the
> f2f meetings.
>
> 2. The document introduces numerous concepts such as page
> ordering, image
> shifting and finishing features, some of which are fairly
> exotic. Granted,
>
>
> the scope of this proposal is "Production" but I wonder if
> this narrow
> scope may have resulted in less than broad participation in actually
> reviewing and digesting this document.
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 13:54:35 EST