Subject: IPP>MOD new attributes, such as orientation

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:03:05 -0700

I assume that today's decision to roll back some attributes to pre-Redmond
includes eliminating "orientation".

It is not suitable as currently defined in the model document.

Orientation has many uses.  But as defined in the model document,
it is only for unpaginated document formats, such as text. We originally
had many attributes for text, such as margins, header-text, footer-text,
etc.  We got rid of these many months ago. It doesn't make sense to
bring back just one of these.

When Roger described the reason for wanting this attribute, it was to
control 2-up so that the orientation would be right. Portrait page
images rotate 90 degrees counterclockwise and landscape page-images
rotate 90 degress clockwise. There is no issue for 1-up or 4-up because
they don't rotate.  So, if this is the problem he is solving, he should
instead ask for an additional value called 2-up-landscape or 
2-up-counter-rotate, whatever is his choice.

Bob Herriot

---

From: Jim Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:23:15 -0500

Robert Herriot wrote:
> ...

If we are going to be pedantic, then I would suggest that we remove the
attribute altogether.  I would rather have implementations add their
own (incompatible) extensions, and have those extensions implement this
properly, than have the kludge suggested above.  I mean, we already have
existing practive to show that the a content-orientation attribute is
very useful as a hint to a number-up algorithm to determine both page
rotation and placement.  I would hate to see us ignore that experience.

And Bob, the orientation is useful for *all* number-up > 1.  If you
go back and think about number-up 4, one would place the logical
pages on the physical page in a different order based upon the
orientation hint.

think about it...
...walker

--
Jim Walker <[email-masked]>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX