Randy and Daniel,
I agree my wording for the client requirements still needs some polish - toss it up to writing it up late at night... How about:
Clients MUST support DNS-SD and/or WS-Discovery.
(the math geek in me likes the intersection version below... :)
Sent from my iPad
On 2012-08-21, at 12:55 AM, Daniel Dressler <danieru.dressler at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, 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.
>> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120821/c0ddcb13/attachment-0001.html>