Re: [EXTERNAL] Specifying landscape orientation for PWG-Raster
Charles Armstrong via ipp <[email protected]> Thu, 3 Jul 2025 18:28:00 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CH0PR16MB44032EDF56B4E4DD3E338262FC43A@CH0PR16MB4403.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> |
Hi Mike and all, Sorry for the short notice. I have been asked to bring the following questions to PWG regarding the page rotation. Our specific questions and points for discussion are outlined in the attached PDF file. I'd like to discuss these items if time permits today. I look forward to a productive discussion. Best Regards, Charles -----Original Message----- From: ipp <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Sweet via ipp Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 4:05 PM To: Michael Ziller <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Sweet <[email protected]>; PWG IPP Workgroup <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [IPP] [EXTERNAL] Specifying landscape orientation for PWG-Raster Email was not sent from a Canon Network! Michael, > On Jun 26, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Michael Ziller <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > 2. As far as "landscape control" I'm not sure what is meant - is the suggestion to offer both landscape and reverse-landscape to the user? I see no current dialogs doing this but rather them currently translating a Landscape dialog request into landscape vs reverse-landscape The current macOS print dialog includes a portrait/landscape chooser and a separate "reverse orientation" switch (disclosed under the Layout options) to choose reverse-portrait/landscape. I don't have my other systems in front of me but I seem to remember that the CPDB print dialog on Linux also supports all orientations? > 3. Concern here is whether client choice of Landscape orientation impacts printer ability to do transformations such as inserting staples, bindings, etc. I just want to make sure that what we decide is congruent to what printer optional components require as far as stapling positions, etc. I'm more soliciting information here so we can make informed decisions, rather than critiquing current specs. If client heuristics are what's best then maybe let's make that more solidified in terms of behavior. I think we can (continue to) provide guidance regarding finishings, but client UI is generally outside the scope of IPP - we can provide the necessary information and offer guidance, but there is no way for us to "enforce" that a Client use that information... ________________________ Michael Sweet _______________________________________________ ipp mailing list [email protected] https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
Canon Questions on Page Rotation.pdf
(application/pdf, 738.1 KB) - not displayed