What kind of a place holder did you have in mind for document attributes?
Such a place holder might be a way forward, as we have done for the
'dictionary' attribute syntax (by reserving the type code).
Tom
At 09:36 09/21/97 PDT, Randy Turner wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>