All,
First, I agree that "imaging" is an poor term for us to use, although for me
it is because it invokes too board a spectrum (e.g., MRI's and conceptual
imaging) rather than being photographic specific. I liked "Hardcopy", since
that reasonably covers the MFD services, but I understand that some envision
PWG activity to extend to non-hardcopy devices, as it has to an extent with
the projector group. And we have been using "Imaging" for a while in other
PWG activities. However, I suggest that, if someone can come up with a
different, good inclusive term, we consider using it in this envisioned
extension of IPP to other services. One problem I see is that we have not
defined what services we intend IPP to extent to beyond the MFD "Hardcopy"
services, and I think this open-ended applicability is going to create
confusion.
Second, I would be inclined to prefer Andrew's option 2 (if indeed "imaging"
is the best term) except that I wonder if we always understand whether a
term is service specific, at least in its details if not in the board sense.
The idea of preceding everything with "print", or whatever service with
which it was first identified, regardless of the service it is being applied
to is a recipe for confusion, if indeed that is what is being suggested. In
the MFD approach, command names are preceded by the service to which they
apply. I would have assumed that the same would apply to attributes, which
would allow distinctions to be made between "print-color-mode",
"scan-color-mode", "copy-color-mode" etc., if such distinctions were
necessary (or later because necessary). Not including any prefix but
understanding the service from context would also work, but might make
defining the differences depending on service more cumbersome and would be
inconsistent with the current "print" prefixed terms.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Petrie,
Glen
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Mitchell, Andrew (Solutions Architect); tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu; Ira
McDonald; Michael Sweet
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [IPP] "print-color-mode" or "imaging-color-mode"?
If the "color-mode" refers to the capability (setting) of the scanner or the
fax; then I vote for 1. below to clearly denote this. An image does not
have a "color-mode"; it has a color space. Mode implies functionality not a
state.
Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Mitchell, Andrew (Solutions Architect)
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:00 PM
To: tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu; 'Ira McDonald'; 'Michael Sweet'
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] "print-color-mode" or "imaging-color-mode"?
OK, my 2¢.
We need to decide if naming a NEW attribute that applies to more then just
print with the print- prefix makes sense. A agree that renaming existing
attributes does not make sense, and using the print- attributes in scan (and
fax) rather then renaming them is logical. But if we are going to say
attributes that are originally defined in Scan (or Fax) start with imaging-
while if they first show up in IPP Everywhere (or some other doc like JPS3)
we name them print- that doesn't seam quite right. My preference would be
either:
1. Call everything that is not scan (or fax) specific print-, no matter
where it is first defined. For scan or fax specific, call them scan- and
fax-.
2. Start using the imaging- prefix everywhere that the term is NOT print
specific.
We are going to expand the model which is heavily rooted in print to other
services, I'd just like to have a consistent naming convention for how we
move forward. 1 seems more confusing to me since it means keeping the print-
name moving forward, and we'll have to maintain the table as to what is
print specific and what isn't, but 1 also seems more true to the roots of
IPP. I however personally vote for 2 since it clearly implies our broader
scope of the protocol moving forward.
As for just dropping the print- prefix, while it works for color-mode, I
think we need to take a harder look to make sure it makes sense everywhere.
Note that I view this as simply a different way of naming option 2. If we
pick option 2 we need to then pick the naming convention.
OK, so that was a bit more the 2¢ worth.
Andrew
From: Tom Hastings
<tom.hastings at verizon.net<mailto:tom.hastings at verizon.net>>
Reply-To: "tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu<mailto:tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu>"
<tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu<mailto:tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu>>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:45:45 +0000
To: 'Ira McDonald'
<blueroofmusic at gmail.com<mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>>, 'Michael Sweet'
<msweet at apple.com<mailto:msweet at apple.com>>
Cc: "ipp at pwg.org<mailto:ipp at pwg.org>" <ipp at pwg.org<mailto:ipp at pwg.org>>
Subject: RE: [IPP] "print-color-mode" or "imaging-color-mode"?
I agree with Ira. On the other hand, one other alternative for the name
would just to drop the "print-" prefix and call it "color-mode".
Tom
________________________________
From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org<mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org>
[mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Ira McDonald
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 15:35
To: Michael Sweet; Ira McDonald
Cc: ipp at pwg.org<mailto:ipp at pwg.org>
Subject: Re: [IPP] "print-color-mode" or "imaging-color-mode"?
Hi Mike,
My two cents.
No - let's keep the name "print-color-mode" to cohere with the
zillion other print-xxx or printer-xxx attributes.
In the new IPP Scanner and Fax objects lets just globally apply
most/many existing IPP Printer attributes in big table(s) with
a rationale for why some attributes are not applicable to the
other multifunction objects.
Unless almost all Printer attributes *are* applicable, which I begin
to suspect is the case (and have a short table of the exceptions).
I think we should reserve use of he "imaging-" prefix for only new
attributes defined first for Scanner, Fax, etc. objects for IPP
Everywhere Second Edition.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com<mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Michael Sweet
<msweet at apple.com<mailto:msweet at apple.com>> wrote:
All,
If we consider scanning and printing of forms, the "bi-level" (threshold)
mode makes sense for both. Do we want to rename "print-color-mode" to
"imaging-color-mode" in anticipation of using is for other MFD services in
IPP?
________________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.