Subject: IPP> Revision of section 4.2.6 multiple-document-handling

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Zilles)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:13:50 PDT

[The terminology in this section seems to muddle "document" meaning
document data and "document" meaning what has finishing operations
applied to it. For this reason the entire section has been redone.]

The current text is:

  4.2.6 multiple-document-handling (type2 keyword)

  This job attribute is relevant only if a job consists of two
  or more documents. It controls finishing operations, and job-
  sheet placement. When the copies attribute exceeds 1, it
  also controls the order of documents.

  Standard values are:

     'single-document': If the files for the job are a and
          b, then files a and b SHALL be treated as a single
          document for finishing operations. The Printer
          SHALL NOT force each document to start on a new
          page or new media sheet. If more than one copy is
          made, the ordering SHALL be a, b, a, b,...., and
          the Printer SHALL force each copy to start on a
          new sheet.
     'separate-documents-uncollated-copies': If the files
          for the job are a and b, then each file SHALL be
          treated as a single document for finishing
          operations. The Printer shall force each document
          copy to start on a new sheet. If more than one
          copy is made, the ordering SHALL be a, a, b, b,
          ....
     'separate-documents-collated-copies': If the files for
          the job are a and b, then each file SHALL be
          treated as a single document for finishing
          operations. The Printer SHALL NOT force each
          document copy to start on a new sheet. If more
          than one copy is made, the ordering SHALL be  a,
          b, a, b, ...., and the Printer shall force each
          document copy to start on a new sheet .

[Note the use of "files" instead of "document data" which is used in the
operation descriptions in 3.2 and 3.3; the mis-use of "document" noted
above and the confusion of pages and media sheets. Nothing is said in
these descriptions about the placement of job-sheets. Finally, I do not
understand the final case at all; it says "each file SHALL be treated as
a single document for finishing operations. The Printer SHALL NOT force
each document copy to start on a new sheet. There is no way if parts of
two files are place on opposite sides of the same sheet (because of the
SHALL NOT) that they will be finished separately. I am also not really
sure which use of "document" is being used in the SHALL NOT clause.

 This suggests the following revision of the section. Note that I had to
introduce a somewhat awkward term, "set of media sheets" for the second
(mis-) use of "document" above.]

  4.2.6 multiple-document-handling (type2 keyword)

  This job attribute is relevant only if a job consists of two or more
  documents. The attribute controls finishing operations and the placement
  of print-stream pages into imposed pages and onto media sheets.  When
  the value of the "copies" attribute exceeds 1, it also controls the
  order in which the copies that result from processing the documents are
  produced. For the purposes of this explanations, if "a" represents an
  instance of document data, then the result of processing the data in
  document "a" is a sequence of media sheets represented by "a'".

  Standard values are:

     'single-document': If a Job object has multiple documents, say the
          document data is called a and b, then the result of processing
          all the document data (a and then b) SHALL be treated as a
          single sequence of media sheets for finishing operations; that is,
          finishing would be performed on the concatenation of the
          seqeunces a',b'. The Printer SHALL NOT force the data in each
          document instance to be formatted onto a new print-stream
          page, nor to start a new imposed page or a new media sheet. If
          more than one copy is made, the ordering of the sets of media
          sheets resulting from processing the document data SHALL be
          a', b', a', b',...., and the Printer SHALL force each copy to
          start on a new media sheet.
     'separate-documents-uncollated-copies': If a Job object has
          multiple documents, say the document data is called a and b,
          then the result of processing the data in each document
          instance SHALL be treated as a single sequence of media sheets for
          finishing operations; that is, the sets a' and b' would each
          be finished separately. The Printer SHALL force each copy of the
          result of process the data in a single document to start on a
          new media sheet. If more than one copy is made, the ordering
          of the sets of media sheets resulting from processing the
          document data SHALL be a', a', b', b' ....
     'separate-documents-collated-copies': If a Job object has multiple
          documents, say the document data is called a and b, then the
          result of processing the data in each document instance SHALL
          be treated as a single sequence of media sheets for finishing
          operations; that is, the sets a' and b' would each be finished
          separately. If more than one copy is made, the ordering of the
          sets of media sheets resulting from processing the document
          data SHALL be a', b', a', b', ...., and the Printer SHALL
          force each document copy to start on a new sheet .

[Note that in the last case, the internal conflict in the description
noted above was resolved by removing the apparently un-intented SHALL
NOT clause. With this change, the last case becomes the same as the
first case with respect to ordering and media sheet generation, but
different with respect to finishing.]

[Note also the this text does not say anything about the placement of
job-sheets because the prior text also did not say anything
about the placement of job-sheets.]

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 08:14:56 PDT

I haven't had a chance to analyze the complete new proposal for
multiple-document-handling, but had the following comments on the
comments at the end:

>NOT clause. 

1. The SHALL NOT was introduced in the Sept 26 version when adding the
entire sentence to the third value to make it like the second value.
I agree that the NOT should be removed in the sentence:
"The Printer SHALL NOT force each document copy to start on a new sheet."
so that the third value has the same sentence as the second value.

>               With this change, the last case becomes the same as the

2. I disagreed slightly with the characterization of the three values:

'single-document'
'separate-documents-uncollatted-copies'
'separate-documents-collated-copies'

I believe that the last case becomes the same as the first case with
respect to ordering of pages, but NOT media sheet generation, since the
first case will put the first page of the next document on the back side
of a sheet if an odd number of pages have been produced so far for the job,
while the third case always force the next document or document copy on to 
a new sheet.  Perhaps you meant the "ordering of pages and the ordering of
media sheet generation".

>about the placement of job-sheets.]

3. The September 26 version deleted the sentences about "slip sheets" 
from all three values since IPP doesn't have a way for a client to specify 
that a slip sheet is to be placed anywhere.  

ISO DPA we defined a whole bunch of different
values for the "job-sheet" attribute that controlled whether extra (slip)
sheets were introduced between documents and/or between copies.  We could
register additional values for the "job-sheet" attribute (after V1.0).
Or we could register an IPP attribute that controls slip sheets 
(after V1.0), if that is desired.

Here is Steve's entire message for context (with no comments inserted):

---

From: "Steve Zilles" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:05:19 PDT

> From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>

> so that the third value has the same sentence as the second value.

I agree that dropping the NOT would solve the conflict and it is a stronger
statement to say, "The Printer SHALL force each copy of the
result of processing the data in a single document to start on a
new media sheet." than to say nothing at all.

>  > With this change, the last case becomes the same as the >first case
> with respect to ordering and media sheet generation, but >different
> with respect to finishing.]  2. I disagreed slightly with the
> characterization of the three values: 'single-document'
> 'separate-documents-collated-copies' I believe that the last case
> becomes the same as the first case with respect to ordering of pages,
> but NOT media sheet generation, since the first case will put the
> first page of the next document on the back side of a sheet if an odd
> number of pages have been produced so far for the job, while the third
> case always force the next document or document copy on to a new
> sheet.  Perhaps you meant the "ordering of pages and the ordering of
> media sheet generation".

I think I was just getting tired when I wrote the text and was not very
careful. I had already observed that

>Finally, I do not
>two files are placed on opposite sides of the same sheet (because of the
>SHALL NOT) that they will be finished separately. 

So I (earlier in the evening) knew that the page placement was not the
same as case 1. What is the same as case 1 is that the ordering of the
sequences of media sheets, once created, is the same as case 1; namely,
a', b', a', b', ....

        Steve

---

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:15:44 PST

Instead of introducing the new term "imposed page", how about
using the term "impression", which we have an attribute that counts
them.  We ought to defined "impression" though in place of "imposed page"
in section 12.2.5.

Tom

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:43:25 -0500

Good point, Tom.  No need to define new terms.

	...jay