IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-

RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

From: harryl@us.ibm.com
Date: Tue Apr 04 2000 - 15:23:41 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "IPP> NOT - Missing bindings in SNMP traps for Jobs [oops]"

    I'm OK with SHOULD rather than MUST.

    However, I don't agree with Michael's recommendation for MUST (use default
    or sniff) when the printer only supports sniff...

     "if a client knows the MIME type but the printer object only supports
    application/octet-stream, then the printer object is just acting as a
    "dumb" printer buffer and the client must only use the default document
    format or pass application/octet-stream".

    If Sniff is all you do (or if it's the default), then you always Sniff and
    MIME becomes irrelevant.

    Of course, as Ira points out, it's not likely that a printer would support
    sniff only.

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    03/30/00 03:05 PM

            To: Michael Sweet <mike@easysw.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
    <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
            cc: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Hastings, Tom N"
    <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, anthony.porter@computer.org, ipp@pwg.org,
    venky@teil.soft.net
            Subject: RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod]
    clarification

    All,

    I agree with Michael that we ought to use SHOULD instead of MUST if we
    want this to be an editorial change; using MUST seems to require a new
    WG Last Call.

    Carl-Uno

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike@easysw.com]
    Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 8:07 AM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'harryl@us.ibm.com'; Hastings, Tom N; anthony.porter@computer.org;
    ipp@pwg.org; venky@teil.soft.net
    Subject: Re: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

    "McDonald, Ira" wrote:
    >
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > I agree with Harry that we should further revise this paragraph
    > to indicate that a client MUST specify a particular document
    > format when known and MUST NOT use 'application/octet-stream'
    > instead.

    Um, that probably won't work too well, since many printer-specific
    data streams do not have registered MIME types (e.g. Canon, ALPS,
    EPSON, Lexmark, etc.), and a generic print server (e.g. JetDirect,
    Axis print server, etc.) probably won't know enough to be able to
    enumerate the supported MIME types for the actual device.

    SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are probably more appropriate if we are
    trying to "encourage" rather than "enforce".

    Also, the application/octet-stream information should probably be
    updated to reflect a special case for printer objects that list
    only application/octet-stream for document-format-supported.
    That is, if a client knows the MIME type but the printer object
    only supports application/octet-stream, then the printer object
    is just acting as a "dumb" printer buffer and the client must
    only use the default document format or pass
    application/octet-stream.

    --
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 15:31:15 EDT