Bob,
I think that the proposal to add "print-optimize" solves two separate
problems, not just a single problem of adding some values:
1. Doesn't invalidate the semantics of "print-quality" (which we are
treating in the same way as an enumeration in JDF, i.e., a closed end list,
in which these are the only values that can be supported: 'draft', 'normal',
and 'high').
2. The Optimize mechanism isn't really just additional print quality values,
but is more specific as to what to optimize. Therefore, it would be wrong
just to add the proposed new values to "print-quality" as you suggest.
Semantics meaning would be lost or mixed. (Also the "print-optimize"
attribute is like the JDF XxxDetails which is an extensible NMTOKEN value,
not an enumeration.)
Also note that "print-quality" may be used in combination with
"print-optimize". So you can have 'draft', 'normal' or 'high' optimization
of, say, 'photo'.
ISSUE: We didn't say that a Printer that supports "print-optimize" MUST
support "print-quality" as well. Should we, since the definition of
"print-optimize" is that it "refines the value supplied (or defaulted) in
"print-quality")?
Also this isn't a precedent that we can't add values to an existing
attribute in IPP or the Semantic Model. It just seems that for this one
"print-quality" attribute both reasons support not adding new values to the
existing attribute.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:bobt at hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 17:39
To: Claudia Alimpich; ipp at pwg.org; printing-jobticket at freestandards.org;
printing-driver at freestandards.org
Subject: [printing-driver] RE: [printing-jobticket] Proposal to add new
IPP print-optimize a ttribute
I understand the desire to avoid violating the semantics of the IPP
attribute - but
adding these enumerations to print-quality does not feel as objectionable to
me
as splitting a single semantic concept into two different attributes. If
this is
the precedent we take for extending the semantic model, I'm worried that
we'll end
up with an increasingly confusing and complex. I would rather we take the
minor hit
and fix the high & draft definitions in the semantic model than create
another
~equivalent attribute with a whole bunch of special semantic rules (e.g. -
what should the
service do if print-quality=high and print-optimize=save-toner?).
bt
---------------------------------------------------
Bob Taylor
Senior Architect
IPG Strategic Technology Development
Hewlett-Packard Co.
mailto:bobt at hp.com
phone: 360.212.2625/T212.2625
fax: 208.730-5111
---------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claudia Alimpich [mailto:alimpich at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 5:27 PM
> To: ipp at pwg.org; printing-jobticket at freestandards.org;
>printing-driver at freestandards.org> Subject: [printing-jobticket] Proposal to add new IPP
> print-optimize attribute
>>>>>>> Last Tuesday during the PWG/FSG meeting in Portland we had a
> discussion about the IPP print-quality attribute and FSG's
> desire to add two new values, "economy" and "fine", where
> "economy" is lower than "draft" and "fine" is higher than
> "high". After some discussion we all pretty much decided that
> it is not possible to add these new values to the already
> existing "draft", "normal", and "high" values because of the
> current definitions of the existing values (high is defined
> as the highest quality and draft is defined as the lowest
> quality). It also seemed like what FSG wanted was a way to
> specify print optimization and not additional levels of print quality.
>> The FSG working group met today, and based on the input from
> last Tuesday's meeting, we would like to propose the addition
> of a new attribute, called print-optimize, that is defined as follows:
>> print-optimize (type2 keyword)
>> This attribute refines the value specified by the print-quality
> attribute.
>> The standard keyword values are:
>> 'image': optimize for image clarity
> 'photo': optimize for photo clarity
> 'text': optimize for text clarity
> 'text-and-image': optimize for both text and image clarity
> 'save-toner': optimize for minimal toner usage
> 'speed': optimize for printing speed
>> We would appreciate your feedback on this proposal including
> suggestions for additional values.
>> If this proposal looks good, we would like to propose that it
> be included in the JobX Spec. If the print-optimize attribute
> is approved by PWG by the end of August, then we can propose
> that it be added to the JDF 1.2 Spec that is being finalized
> in early September.
>> Thank you for your time and feedback.
> Claudia Alimpich
> IBM Printing Systems Division
> Boulder CO
> 303-924-4418
>alimpich at us.ibm.com>>> _______________________________________________
> printing-jobticket mailing list printing-jobticket at freestandards.org>http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-jobticket>
_______________________________________________
printing-driver mailing list
printing-driver at freestandards.orghttp://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-driver