Section 2.4. You state that you don't support print by reference, but
your Rationale suggests you would do it the same we have proposed, namely
with a job attribute which contains the document URI. Am I missing
something? So, do you plan to support print by reference with a client
supplied URI?
Section 7.4. I would suggest that you look at the new wording for
defining the characters allowed for an attribute name. The document
should be posted by Monday. It limits names to the ASCII letters,
ASCII digits, ASCII hyphen and ASCII underscore.
Section 8. You define several different representations for attribute
values: text, binary integers, binary boolean, binary keywords. But
you don't include a field for value's type. This makes is hard for
a client to know how to interpret and unknown attribute. I think
the right solution is to keep the IPP solution where all values are
text. Alternatively, we could all agree to add a one byte type field
just before the value's length field.
Section 8 (Setof): We decided at the San Diego meeting that a set of
values would be represented by a sequence of attributes in which
all but the first attribute name would be of 0 length. Your description
omits the statement about 0 length.