All,
As I continue to sift through the minutes from the October 2011 F2F, I saw that we decided to normatively reference the 5106.1 definition of impressions for IPP and the Semantic Model going forward.
However, for FaxOut (and potentially other IPP service bindings, should we do them) the existing job-impressions/-completed attributes would not apply. Section 7.1 of 5106.1 has the following to say about impressions:
The relationships in this section are common to all services that contain the associated counters. For example the relationship for Impression applies to Copy, EmailIn, FaxIn, NetworkFaxIn, Print and SystemTotals because “impressions” is applicable to these services The relationship for Impression does not apply to EmailOut, FaxOut, NetworkFaxOut, Scan or Transform because “impressions” is not applicable to these services.
Presumably we should report and count images instead, however IPP has never defined image counter attributes (e.g. there are no job-images/-completed attributes).
Should I:
1. Add new job-images and job-images-completed Job Description attributes for FaxOut. This would preserve a closer 1-to-1 mapping with the Semantic Model.
or:
2. Redefine job-impressions and job-impressions-completed to be images for FaxOut and other image-based services. This would make FaxOut closer to Print from a Client perspective, and existing code to report progress or do accounting would work without changes.
Thoughts?
_________________________________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20111101/fc75f45b/attachment-0001.html>