Hi Tom,
To me, #2 is the issue to really focus on: is this really two semantic
concepts,
or one? If any of these values are semantically really just additional
enumerations for
print-quality, I'd much rather we fix this than do the split it.
As for #2, what "semantic meaning would be lost or mixed" if we just
extended
the enumeration for print-quality? Although you can, by having these as
two attributes, specify "draft" and "photo" - in practice, this is
virtually never done: "photo" is usually specified in one of a couple
ways:
- my media type (i.e., photo-glossy paper model #C239847A)
- PrintQuality (quality = Photo4800DPI) - i.e., another print-quality
enumeration
If it's something other than one of these, it's usually what we call in
PSI
capabilities a "macro feature" - i.e., it's not a real attribute sent to
the
device, but a feature defined as a macro combination of other features -
which
I don't think is a concept currently supported by IPP.
Fundamentally, "refines the value specified by the print-quality" seems
like
a
weak semantic differentiation, and I believe it is inconsistent with how
extensions
to the print-quality concept have been applied in at least the inkjet
segment of
the market.
thanks,
bt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:08 PM
> To: printing-driver at freestandards.org; Claudia Alimpich; ipp at pwg.org> Cc: printing-jobticket at freestandards.org> Subject: RE: [printing-driver] RE: [printing-jobticket]
> Proposal to add ne w IPP print-optimize attribute
>>> 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.org>http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/prin> ting-driver
>>> _______________________________________________
>> printing-driver mailing list
>printing-driver at freestandards.org>http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/prin> ting-driver
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20030626/ed284e1a/attachment-0001.html