Just checking to see if we haven't got a hole in this
somewhere....
Randy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert.Herriot@Eng.Sun.COM [SMTP:Robert.Herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 3:27 PM
> To: ipp@pwg.org; rturner@sharplabs.com
> Subject: Re: IPP> Document attributes
>
> I think that we agreed not to decide on the format of attributes that
> have a separate value for each document by eliminating document-name,
> and stating that all documents in a job have the same document-format,
> meaning that document-format is a job-level attribute.
>
> Document-URI is still a problem unless either we eliminate Send-URI
> (my
> preference) or eliminate document-URI as a job attribute until a later
> version.
>
> Although we previously decided not design a format for per-document
> attributes until a later version, I pointed out that an attribute
> 'foo'
> could take on a "dictionary" value whose values might be "default=XYZ"
> and "3=ABC" to indicate that the job level 'foo' attribute has a value
> of "XYZ" and document-3 has a value of "ABC". Such a solution is not
> precluded by the current design.
>
> Bob Herriot
>
> > From rturner@sharplabs.com Sun Sep 21 09:49:57 1997
> >
> > Ok, so we have these actual document attributes that we could
> admittedly move
> > into "job document attributes" just to save us the work this time of
> actually doing
> > the work to support document attributes. This might be
> > problematic for future implementations that actually *DO* the
> > document attribute model correctly, having to be backward-compatible
> > with our "hacked" version of document attributes of IPP 1.0.
> >
> > I thought maybe we could allow a placeholder in the model/protocol
> for
> > V 1.0 for document attributes, so that we could easily integrate
> this in
> > the future with very little work.
> >
> > Concerning the "job-document-attribute" proposal...
> > I'm assuming that the send-document operation allows these
> "job-document"
> > attributes to be included (I can't remember the send-document
> specifics from the
> > model document...).
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > Ira Mcdonald x10962 wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Randy,
> > >
> > > I think we agreed that JOBs could have descriptive attributes
> > > (either single- or multi-valued??) about the associated
> > > document(s), which apply unless (in a future version of IPP)
> > > they are overridden at the (future) DOCUMENT object level.
> > >
> > > I speculate that the following JOB level attributes are
> > > necessary or desirable in IPP 1.0:
> > >
> > > [job]document-name
> > > [job]document-URI (to support Send-URI)
> > > [job]document-format
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > - Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
> > > High North In
> > > 906-494-2434
> >
> >
> >
> >