Thanks for the feedback, Mike. I'll reply before our IPP WG meeting on 3/14 with some content articulating the problems we are trying to solve with this, including some illustrations. More soon.
Smith
> On 2016-02-29, at 12:04 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> Let's discuss this at today's meeting. I'm concerned about having feed-orientation influencing what finishing processes can be applied - that could yield finishing processes that work from one tray but not another, which isn't good for usability... And it unnecessarily ties finishing templates to media paths, which gets us uncomfortably into specifying process vs. intent.
>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless Architect) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> HP previously proposed to have "orientation-requested" attribute added as a child attribute of "finishings-col" in the updates being added to Finishings 2.0. In support of the same or related use cases, HP proposes that the "feed-orientation" attribute should also be added as an optional child attribute of "finishings-col".
>>>> Cheers,
>> Smith
>>>> /**
>> Smith Kennedy
>> Wireless Architect - Client Software - IPG-PPS
>> Standards - IEEE ISTO PWG / Bluetooth SIG / Wi-Fi Alliance / NFC Forum / USB IF
>> PWG Chair
>> HP Inc.
>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> ipp mailing list
>>ipp at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4956 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20160229/a8c5086e/attachment.p7s>