Gee. I thought that we agreed that attribute values were keywords, not
numbers. That is why there is a count for every attribute value. Ok?
Sorry I didn't see this mail message until now.
Tom
At 10:46 05/21/97 PDT, Paul Moore wrote:
>The length ot the attribute name is 2 bytes.
>>The one that I think is much more interesting - which we did not drill
>into - is keyword values for attributes. I still have those as 2 byte
>enumerations. I think this is the right thing to do and Tom agreed at
>the meeting but there was not a lot of discusion.
>>Eg Operation has two values 1 (which means Validate) and 2 (meaning
>printjob).
>DocumentFormat uses the rfc1759 values
>etc.
So these values should be key words, not enums, ok?
Tom
>>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Isaacson [SMTP:SISAACSON at novell.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 9:32 AM
>> To: hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com; Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM; Paul
>> Moore
>> Cc: ipp at pwg.org>> Subject: IPP> Re: Unsigned integer count for attribute name
>> keywordsandattribute values
>>>>>>>> >>> Robert Herriot <Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM> 05/20 1:37 PM >>>
>>>> > Did we agree to one or two bytes for the length of attribute names?
>> I
>> > thought two, just in case we ever use Unicode rather than UTF-8 to
>> > encode attribute names. We wouldn't want the attributes to then be
>> > limited to 127 characters.
>>>> I thought all lengths would be 2 or 4 bytes, never just 1. I thought
>> we
>> limited attribute names to be the same as keywords now: US ASCII
>> characters
>>>> (a-zA-Z), digits (0-9), hyphen (-) and underscore (_). We all know
>> the
>> consequences of not being able to internationalize these attribute
>> names,
>> but why are you suggesting maybe someday worrying about UTF-8 for
>> attribute
>> names?
>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>