Hi Harry,
As of my note yesterday to Bob Taylor (HP), I've _abandoned_ my idea for the
PWG standard MIME parameters. A few Printer MIB-derived text parameters are
feasible (although line length may well become a problem in some
cut-and-paste
interfaces). But _none_ of the interoperable machine-readable parameters
that
HP and others have asked for are practical.
I believe we should leave unchanged the simple (unornamented) MIME types
currently deployed in IPP/1.x implementations.
For the PWG SM and PWG PSI interfaces, we should define an XML structured
element (such as the suggested "document-type") with as many new details
as we need.
For the IPP binding, we need to figure out the best solution. I vastly
prefer an IPP Resource-based solution, but we _could_ kludge these in
with something like "document-type-col" (a collection).
Adding a new ordered IPP Printer attribute that is directly parallel
to the "document-format-supported" is possible, but a TERRIBLE idea.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
PS - I copied PSI and IPP lists on this reply to make sure others see my
answer to your question promptly.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:37 PM
To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
Subject:
In the MIME type definitions standard where you are embellishing... for
better description of document types... is there any thought given to
resulting length and how this works (or not) with various protocols (ex.
SNMP, SMTP, etc.). Question came up at f2f today.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 17:59:05 EST