Subject: IPP> REQ - ISSUE - Add a requirement that printing files have same capabilites as printing from an application

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:55:44 PST

One of the requirements that we should add relates the functionality that
a user has available over a file or document that has already been produced
(usually be a different user) as compared with the functionality that
a user has when printing from an application that generates the PDL on
the fly (using the platform's GDI and printer driver).

The web has shifted the printing paradigm from mainly printing from current
running applications to a more balanced approach between two printing
paradigms: printing from the application and printing from a previously
produced document or file.

We need to be striving to provide the same functionality to the end-user
for both printing paradigms with IPP.

So I suggest adding a requirement something like:

  IPP shall provide the same functionality to the end-user for print
  time choices of stored documents as the end-user has for printing
  directly from an application.

  For example, the user can choose number of copies, two-sided, stapling,
  number-up, and page ranges, etc. whether printing from the application 
  that has the entire document or printing from a file or document that 
  has been stored on the web or in a document repository.

Commments?

Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:39:20 -0800

> From [email-masked] Mon Mar 10 12:35:01 1997
> 

I'm not sure if this should be a requirement for V1.0, but we should definitely
make it be a strong goal of IPP. If it is a requirement, then we need
to be certain that it is implementable at a reasonable cost for all vendors.
That is, some vendors have PDL interpreters that access external attributes
and others don't.  For the latter group, production attributes must be
merged into the PDL data stream.   Attributes, such as sides, are reasonably
easy to merge, but attributes, such as n-up, are considerably more difficult.

---

From: Don Wright <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Mar 97 18:01:49 EST

Tom:

I have a real problem with this because 99.99% of the printing
done today does not provide this kind a functionality.  Late
binding is a concept that exists in none of the major operating
systems and only in certain packages like Dazel.  Additionally,
while the protocol may support this type of function, it is not
in our area to tell application writers what functions are to be
exposed to the user.  We can define a model and a protocol
mapping that is neutral as to the source of the job but beyond
that it is really up to the implementors of the user interface,
the print server and the printer as to whether the things you
ask for are implemented or every possible.  

I really think this is more "fat" being added to IPP.  As we
discussed briefly on last week's conference call, this is all
becoming way to heavy.  We really need to start thinking about
a real minimal implementation requirement with functionality
like the Microsoft proposal with (I hate to say this so you IPDS
guys cover your ears) "towers" of functionality that can be
negotiated between the submitter and the server.  We have got
to cut this down to what is really necessary and focus on getting
that done and implemented ASAP!!!

Don

To: ipp%pwg.org @ interlock.lexmark.com @ SMTP
cc:  (bcc: Don Wright)
From: hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com @ interlock.lexmark.com (Tom Hastings) @ SMTP
Date: 03/10/97 11:55:44 AM
Subject: IPP> REQ - ISSUE - Add a requirement that printing files have same  
capabilites as printing from an application

Commments?

Tom

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:34:46 PST

>easy to merge, but attributes, such as n-up, are considerably more difficult.

I agree that the requirement can't be met with some PDL implementations.  

I was proposing a requirement that the IPP protocol meet, not
what implementations will necessarily be able to support for all PDLs.
So we need to add some words to indicate this as a requirement for the
protocol to provide the functionality and a goal for implementation to 
support.  Perhaps, add some wording that this requirement is "to the extent 
possible with today's PDL implementations".

Tom

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:07:24 PST

At 15:01 03/10/97 PST, Don Wright wrote:
>exposed to the user.  

I agree (with you and Bob).  What I was trying to suggest was a
requirement for our requirements document that our IPP protocol would
enable.

                            We can define a model and a protocol
>ask for are implemented or every possible.  

I agree.

>that done and implemented ASAP!!!

I agree with this as well.  So I'm not proposing adding more stuff
(except the page-select that was deleted recently, but is something that
you can do from current applications and that you can do with .PDF PDL
today.  So I don't want to add anything else (except to add back what
we had in our original proposal).

What stuff would you like to see removed from our current draft?

Thanks,
Tom