As a random bystander I can confirm that "one of X and Y" sounds a bit odd.
Although the context does make it clear.
How about "Clients MUST support either DNS-SD or WS-Discovery or both" to
eliminate any final confusion with English's exclusive or.
While I'm being usless let me also suggest another wording "The
intersection between the set of client's supported protocols and the set
{DNS-SD, WS-Discovery} must not be the empty set."
Daniel
2012/8/20 Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com>
>> i think I understand the compromise, although I would have worded 1b and
> 2b a little different
>> Clients MUST support either DNS-SD or WS-Discovery….
>> It's just a different use of a contraction
>> "…one of DNS-SD AND WS-Discovery" seemed to use an AND contraction which
> implied both - someone might inadvertently parse this in a way we didn't
> expect….although I got the gist of the compromise.
>> R.
>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:16 PM, William A Wagner wrote:
>> I think this is a practical and reasonable compromise. From at least my
> perspective, this does not put an unreasonable additional burden on
> printers while making potentially easier for clients to achieve and claim
> compliance.****
> Bill Wagner****
> ** **
> *From:* ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael
> Sweet
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 9:42 PM
> *To:* ipp at pwg.org> *Subject:* [IPP] IPP Everywhere and "The Great Compromise"****
> ** **
> All,****
> ** **
> We discussed the PWG Last Call comments received thus far at today's IPP
> WG conference call. Two of the comments concerned the client requirements
> to support DNS-SD for discovery and both PWG Raster and JPEG for document
> formats. After over an hour of spirited debate, the following "great
> compromise" was proposed to resolve the last call comments:****
> ** **
> 1. Discovery:****
> ** **
> a. Printers MUST support both DNS-SD and WS-Discovery (adds
> WS-Discovery)****
> b. Clients MUST support at least one of DNS-SD and WS-Discovery
> (Clients can choose amongst the two required protocols)****
> ** **
> 2. Document Formats:****
> ** **
> a. Printers MUST support both JPEG and PWG Raster (no change)****
> b. Clients MUST support at least one of JPEG and PWG Raster (relaxes
> conformance - previously a Client had to support both)****
> ** **
> Please comment on the proposed changes.****
> ** **
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair****
> ** **
>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.****
>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20120820/955649ef/attachment-0001.html>