IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> 2 more significant proposed incre

Re: IPP> 2 more significant proposed increases in conformance requirements for the IPP Document object spec

From: Dennis Carney (dcarney@us.ibm.com)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 12:11:46 EDT

  • Next message: Mike Sweet: "Re: SM> Re: IPP> 4 significant proposed increases in conformance requirements for the IPP Document object spec"

    This might be an awful idea, so feel free to shoot it down with vicious
    force...

    Based on the desire to have extensions that do not include OPTIONAL items,
    might it make sense to break the current Document object spec into two:
    - The "Base Document object" spec, which defines the basics of the Document
    object and has no OPTIONAL items: everything is mandatory. This would make
    interop a breeze, and would hopefully also encourage adoption since the
    spec would hopefully be relatively small.
    - The "Extended Document object" spec, containing all the currently
    OPTIONAL items. This spec *could* also make all the extensions mandatory
    (I would think that making absolutely *everything* mandatory would
    discourage adoption, however).

    The process of going through the current spec to determine which items are
    "Base" and which are "Extended" might also result in determining which
    items aren't "Document object" items at all.

    Dennis Carney
    IBM Printing Systems

                                                                                                                                                       
                          Mike Sweet
                          <mike@easysw.com> To: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
                          Sent by: cc: sm@pwg.org, ps@pwg.org, ipp@pwg.org
                          owner-ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: IPP> 2 more significant proposed increases in conformance requirements for the IPP
                                                    Document object spec
                                                                                                                                                       
                          04/19/03 08:54 PM
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                       

    Hastings, Tom N wrote:
    > ...
    > 2. Add a REQUIRED way to the Get-Jobs operation for the client to get the
    > Jobs following the limit requested in a previous request.
    >
    > So add the "start-after-job-id" (integer (0:MAX)) Operation attribute.

    This is a nice addition, but has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
    DOCUMENT OBJECTS. It doesn't belong here. If anything, you should
    put together a single, small spec that adds this functionality to
    Get-Jobs separately. A pain, but this single attribute is useful
    on its own.

    Also, you probably need to have a way to let the client know that
    this attribute is supported, e.g.
    "start-after-job-id-supported (boolean)"... 

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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 12:13:00 EDT