Re: [IPP] Handling use case where smaller Input Page media size is printed on larger physical media

Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp@pwg.org> Mon, 28 October 2019 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A33D12009C for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=apple.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FuO7duOJRWIS for <ietfarch-ipp-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (mail.pwg.org [50.116.7.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F5B120098 for <ipp-archive2@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 2FA8A629C; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:17:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.pwg.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD132638; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:17:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: ipp@pwg.org
Delivered-To: ipp@pwg.org
Received: by mail.pwg.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 29A303F82; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:17:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [17.151.62.66]) by mail.pwg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77A381C7A for <ipp@pwg.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:17:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pps.filterd (nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9SGCVAJ038499; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:23 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=sender : content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=20180706; bh=kSOTNlCowv5E72P4uy8tJsYDqnFA0FfX25HLKm403Jk=; b=lEIKmdAn0Lo3ukvxbjVYVRGosjWnuj3eXxoqXYBjHqchIxvXK+nhC5KMRHjRcVlai8uN uPJeJlBITqNoWXfJBpE6KsZL37JLmvSOiL/3X4nTo28EiGUZd27ZSlrrSBSzoy/zwmxN +z5paIQU3p2CemY56sPB5j8XP6iRM+pC9oO1RbXwcTxsfPa8OCpc00tUHxXtVqtUMqqH Bc1D8HtAIKZ4H5qlzI/faIt1pjjh6tib1Ac3hk5ESKB4oeNC6vSBUhRHuDeo26SG+B/H WS3Iyx/vljRZ11+K75b7GrQALB8D1kkzhW6mU+d1uwuFGI2p3rA1lQXMUugPvFzpUIr0 iw==
Received: from ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com (ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com [17.40.76.7]) by nwk-aaemail-lapp01.apple.com with ESMTP id 2vvn30s5nq-2 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:23 -0700
Received: from nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com (nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com [17.128.115.122]) by ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) with ESMTPS id <0Q03008P5EKY0ED0@ma1-mtap-s03.corp.apple.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com by nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) id <0Q0300A00EESCA00@nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: e144540b7342dfdd5f6898b05c7d1e1b
X-Va-E-CD: e4e977141d26327c87d8d301fc6e3f36
X-Va-R-CD: 9c3f05b46ea285110804182d6dba2b67
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: a3210c61-5e39-4aff-839d-2d9a08d9ba0a
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: e144540b7342dfdd5f6898b05c7d1e1b
X-V-E-CD: e4e977141d26327c87d8d301fc6e3f36
X-V-R-CD: 9c3f05b46ea285110804182d6dba2b67
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: 60d396bb-607b-4b8c-b871-b072534a3aef
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-10-28_06:,, signatures=0
Received: from [17.234.63.196] by nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.0.2.4.20190507 64bit (built May 7 2019)) with ESMTPSA id <0Q0300AVEEKS3S50@nwk-mmpp-sz10.apple.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
In-reply-to: <CS1PR8401MB1270F9C440A9C6C6958715B69E660@CS1PR8401MB1270.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:17:16 -0400
Message-id: <F5A20D44-D235-4F42-8B50-6E1BD8D6E3DE@apple.com>
References: <CS1PR8401MB127078F96CA5B8467EBE33669E650@CS1PR8401MB1270.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <4DD3449A-5F43-417A-BFEB-FBF96E35B003@apple.com> <CS1PR8401MB1270F9C440A9C6C6958715B69E660@CS1PR8401MB1270.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: "Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards)" <smith.kennedy@hp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-28_06:, , signatures=0
Cc: PWG IPP Workgroup <ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: Re: [IPP] Handling use case where smaller Input Page media size is printed on larger physical media
X-BeenThere: ipp@pwg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: ISTO-PWG Internet Printing Protocol workgroup discussion forum <ipp.pwg.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/options/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipp@pwg.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>, <mailto:ipp-request@pwg.org?subject=subscribe>
From: Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp@pwg.org>
Reply-To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: ipp-bounces@pwg.org
Sender: ipp <ipp-bounces@pwg.org>

Smith,

> On Oct 28, 2019, at 12:05 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) <smith.kennedy@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
>  
> All 3 of the “likely scenarios” below don’t satisfy the user’s expectations.

Generally #1 is addressed in the Client UI so that the scaling behavior is explicit (and thus matching user expectations...)  But in the absence of explicit intent I would argue that the Printer has no way to know what the user's expectations are and I would expect 3 users to give 4 different expectations of this scenario... :/

> If we went with imposition-template and ‘finishings-col” to cut out the pages, that starts to turn into specifying a “process”.

There is always a bit of process/intent mixing with finishings - the key here is that you aren't telling the printer the order of operations, just the list of operations that are needed to satisfy the user's explicit intent.

> I suppose a Preset could be used, but that seems awkward. Can you speak more about the “queueing and nesting” from “the old days”? Was that via IPP or using something else?

That was a DesignJet setting on the printer's console you enabled, and then the HP-GL/2 jobs you sent from your computer would be ordered, rotated, etc. to best use the roll.  Basically, open AutoCAD and then plot each of the layers/designs separately, then the printer would combine them all on the roll.  Also worked for HP-RTL if you had enough memory/hard drive space on the DesignJet...

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
ipp@pwg.org
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp