Mike, a few comments for consideration
1. Line 190+ --- Section 2.3 on
terminology is a table in other PWG specification. A table format makes
it easy to read.
2. Line 191 --- I
thought that “coloring” as adding or assigning attributes values;
typically by “discovery” of attributes from a document-format.
In fact the term in only used on line 484 and could easily be dropped and
remove any confusion.
3. Line 192 --- The
term “direct imaging” is not used in the document and it also seems
we are inventing new terminology.
4. Line 201 --- The
term “indirect imaging” is not used in the document and it also
seems we are inventing new terminology.
5. Line 206 --- Service
seems to be ambiguous. For this specification, isn’t Service
a Print Service? If the definition is trying to define “Service”
in a totally generic sense then any use of the term Service needs an adjective to
name the Service. I.e. Print Service, Print Client Service, Print
Transform Service; but Service alone not descriptive.
6. Line 209 --- The
term “Visible Device” is not used in the document and it also seems
we are inventing new terminology.
7. Line 210 --- “Visible/Visibility”
is “access/accessibility” and should not depend upon “direct/indirect”
communication, How would the Client even know or care. Again, we seem to
be inventing new terms.
8. Line 219 --- How does
existing protocols or schema do any kind “… auto-configuration of
imaging devices”. It might configure an imaging device but
not auto-configure.
9. Line 229 --- HTTP 1.1
already supports message chunking; did you have some specific reason for
stating “with chunking” in this rationale?
10. Line 235 --- The “minimal
file format” should be the “minimal print format” or “minimal
print-content format” since a PWG Raster may never be a file.
11. Line 236 --- There
seems to be no value to the words “color and grayscale” since PWG
raster support more color format that just color and grayscale. I suggest
removing the words.
12. Line 239 --- There
seems to be no value to the words “color and grayscale” since PWG
raster support more color format that just color and grayscale. I suggest
removing the words.
13. Line 244 --- I suggest
changing “photographic” to “bitmap”
14. Line 258 --- I believe in
the sentence “Printer selection is part of most Service use cases”,
the word “Service” should be removed or replaced with “printing”.
The word “Service” is ambiguous and confusing.
15. Line 260 --- How can a “Logical
Printer” be a “Scan Service”; perhaps you meant a “Print
Service”
16. Line 261 --- I
recommend putting quotes around “Selection Using a Directory Service”
and “Selection Using Properties” to denote they are title of
sections.
17. Line 265 --- I
suggest changing the line to read “For all of the following use-cases, a
Printer or Print Service must be accessible to the Client to be selectable.”
18. Line 267 --- Section
3.2.1.1 --- This use-case should be removed. Why is this section
a use-case for IPP? It does imply or infer any requirement for
IPP-Everywhere. It attempts to define the requirement and
operations of a Print Client(!!!) and this specification does not define this
type Client operations that are not IPP related.
19. Line 275 --- I am
confused about how this line is written. I don’t see the situation where
the Client asks the User for a printer name or address. I do see
the case where the Client presents a list of Printer/Print-Service by name or
address. If the user (and now the Client, perhaps) is at a
new location; exactly how to they obtain the printer name – ask someone!!!
20. Line 282 --- same comment
as for Line 275. When was the last time you saw a Client interface asked-for
the URI of the printer (may be in setup but no by the Client).
21. Through out the document,
it only discusses the “Printer”. I very strong
recommend this be change to “Printer or Print Service”. The
new print paradigm is service and printer.
22. Line 298 --- Change “Visible”
to “accessible”.
23. Line 302 --- The words “on
behalf of the user” should be removed. There may no always be
a user (example an embedded solution).
24. Line 302 --- I do not see
why there is a requirement that the Client “maintains a dynamic list of “accessible”
Printers, during selection. I believe this should read, the Client “present
a list of the currently accessible Printers or Print Services during selection”.
The original statement put a burden on the Client to continuously initiate
discovery or updating a list or drop-down menu if a new printer just happens to
come up during the printer selection action.
25. Line 304 --- Suggest
removing “, updating those Printers as they come and go.”
Have you ever tried selecting something from a list as the list continues to
change; it ain’t fun.
26. Line 309 --- Shouldn’t
geo-location be a filter on Printer and Print Service found by Discovery; where
the Printer and Print Services report geo-location? The
Client, via the user, may have to specify what “a range” (proximity)
to use.
27. Line 313 --- Is the
implication of this statement that the Printer or Print Service will somehow
maintain the geo-loc list of Client !!!! I understand the Printer
or Print Service has a geo-loc and the Client knows its own geo-loc; so the
Client can do “proximity” sorting (I don’t about the word “detection”).
28. line 315 ---
Section 3.2.18 If the Client can use Discovery to find the Printer or
Print Service; then you are suggesting the reading a bar-code will somehow
establish communication and an IPP protocol; interesting !!!!
29. line 323 ---
What does “properties such as Service” mean? If “Service”
is dropped and line 324 changes “Printer” to “Printer or
Print Service” then it makes sense.
30. Line 324 --- Again, “Service
properties include ….” makes more sense if it read “Printer
or Print Service properties include….”. I can not see a
User selecting an XYZ – protocol using an ABC-security model; if so, that’s
one sophisticated user. If you are attempting to encompass a Cloud
Print Service, I believe that protocol and security issues with the Client are
done behind the scene based on some global Client host system settings.
31. line 330 --- I
believe a better wording is something like. “The User sets selection
filters and/or conditions in the Client User Interface which are used to obtain
a list of candidate Printers or Print Services. The Client filters
the Printer and Print Service list using the user chosen filters and conditions
along with site and/or administrative policies and restrictions. The
User selects a printer from the filtered list provided by the Client User
Interface.”
32. line 336 --- I
would suggest removing the first sentence; I really think the primary function of
most Printers is to print!
33. line 338 --- I
suggest this wording. “the Printer or Print Service status and
capabilities information. “ There should be no need to display
status information unless it does not allow the user to print. If,
by status, you mean number of existing job on the printer; so the user can
determine if another, less busy, printer should be used; then ok; but lets make
it “Existing Job Status”. If you mean ink/toner levels; this
may or not be a returnable value to all user. For a managed at Star
Bucks, only the administrator may get an indicator of ink/toner
levels. This specification, in the intro section, discussion the
use for mobile devices; so if I have a 7 inch display; not problem; if I have a
cell phone; screen space if very limited. Thus, displaying any
status information is implementation specific with the exception of status that
prevents actual printing (which would likely be a pop up dialog).
34. Line 347 --- Add the
word “A” to beginning of sentence.
35. Line 348 --- Need to fix “user
User”. At the end of the sentence, I believe the word “processing”
should be replaced with “print”.
36. Line 349 --- in the first
part of the sentence you use “Job” but in the next sentence you use
“print job”; I suggest using “print job” in both
places.
37. line 349 ---
suggest changing “print action” to “print intent”
38. line 350 ---
would it be clearer to change “Job Ticket” to “Print Job Ticket”
(everywhere in the document)
39. Line 353 --- same as for line
347
40. line 355 ---
suggest changing “processing” to “print”
41. line 356 ---
same as for line 349; both comments
42. line 357 ---
same as for line 350
43. line 360 ---
same as for line 347
44. line 360 ---
to match the next paragraph; I would suggest changing “viewing a photo”
to “viewing a photo on her phone”
45. line 361 ---
the word “her” could be replaced with “her selected”
46. line 363 --- I
suggest this wording; “automatically sets the media selection to
the largest …”
47. line 364 --- change
“processing” to “print”
48. line 365 --- same
as for line 349; both comments
49. line 378-379 ---
to make this use-case work out as defined the Client must be part of the
accounting program. No problem with this and, in fact, it is a good
idea. To make this clear, some rewording is needed. For
example “The User initiates check printing using the accounting program’s
print Client. The User selects the Printer with the check blanks loaded
and selects checks as the print intent. The accounting program’s
Client User Interface …”
50. line 381 --- change
second sentence to “The accounting program’s Client set the
media-source to the tray containing the blank checks.”
51. Line 385 --- should
the User de-configure the Printer for the “check” media or should
the Printer do that (how and when).
52. after line 385 ---
The same precondition for this use-case as was in the last use-case
53. line 387 ---
while the use of the words “factotum and general gofer” is
interesting; it sounds demeaning; can we use something else. Maybe,
“resort, a resort associate” and change Gofer in other places to
Associate.
54. line 389 --- modify
“Costs ….” To “Costs of printing …”
Also change “Gofer” to “The Associate”
55. line 390 --- change
“Resort” to “The resort” Also change “available
to users” to “available for use” since users is ambiguous and
it will be an employee that will actually do the printing in this use-case.
56. line 392 ---
It is not clear that a the printed material will be “removed from the
premises”. So change to “sheets for quest use”.
57. Line 394 --- change “processing”
to “print” and change “action” to “intent”
(no action has taken place yet only an intent of action)
58. Line 395 --- The client does
not “produce document data”!!!! I think something
else is meant here, but needs to be made clearer in the paragraph. That
is, the user created a document-page with the ten keywords/phrases and, then,
used the number-up layout feature of the Client to duplicate the document-page on
the print-page” with the correct 2” x 1” sizing.
59. Line 399 --- I believe
this use case is about “only physically print the job when I am at the
printer and entry a code”. So the title should be something like “Print
when authorized at Printer”.
60. Line 400 --- this
line needs to be replaced with something like. “The account
manager needs to print the monthly statements on the high speed, general use
Printer in the hallway. After he sets up his print intent and
identifies the document to be printed; he selects the option for “Print
When Present” which will hold the Print Job until he enters his access
code. The Client then sends the Print Job to the Printer to be held
until the manager present. The manager goes to the hallway Printer
and after noting the Printer is not in use, he selects his job, enters his
access code and printing begins.”
61. Line 403 --- This paragraph
would have to make the general use case from the new paragraph above.
62. Line 407 --- Interesting
point: Does the Client only send a “Hold Until Present”
request to the printer; then, after authorization send the actual print
job. Or, does the Client send the actual Print Job with the “Hold
Until Present” flag set. This would require that Printer be
able to hold the Job at the Printer. Either or both scenarios are
interesting and valid.
63. line 410 ---
where are the document. Did he upload them to his phone or are they in a repository.
Let’s just say at an accessible URI
64. Line 412 --- change
to “ …. provider web pages. Using the provider web
based Client, he specifies his job intent of 10 color copies, printed duplex
and stapled on the left side. He also specifies the covers to be 80lb.
stock, and the internal pages to be 24lb. stock. After review is
his print intent, he enters the URI for the document and submits the Print Job.”
65. Line 417 --- This is
not different from the use-case 3.2.2.6
66. line 425 ---
Title could be “Print with Proof Print”
67. Line 426 --- change “processing”
to “print”
68. Line 427 --- change “selects
…” to “set the option for a proof print using page 17 of the
full document and confirms the print intent.
69. line 429 --- change
“prints a …” to “prints a proof print using page 17 of
the document.”
70. line 434 --- Interesting.
When the Client was invoked and the Client created a list of discovered printer
or print service, it displayed the list to the user; by default the Client User
Interface would have to have some printer selected (the first in the list most
likely). So if the cancels or does not select a different printer then
the one that was set in Client user Interface list would become the
default. This would be true even if a pop-up were used for the printer
selection. So the print request does not have to cancel.
71. line 436 ---
change “Visible” to “accessible”
72. Line 441 --- suggest
changing “print the document” to “print the Print Job”
73. line 449 --- Does “cancels
the print request” imply that the Client terminated or could the Client
inform the user to wait.
74. line 483 --- capitalize
the first word “list”
75. Line 484 --- change “coloring”
to “capabilities”
Out of time and the rest looks pretty good.
Glen
RSS Feed