See my response to Dennis to break out the non-document-only stuff into a
separate spec.
I listed the specific things that would move out there.
This note adds some more items to that list of things to move out to this
separate spec which is all OPTIONAL and independent of the Document Object
spec.
1. We could also move out Close-Job, since that operation can be used
without the Document Object.
2. Another question is whether it would be useful to move out the new Job
Template attributes that have the 'job-' prefix added:
8.1.1 job-copies (integer(1:MAX))
8.1.2 job-cover-back (collection)
8.1.3 job-cover-front (collection)
8.1.4 job-finishings (1setOf type2 enum)
8.1.5 job-finishings-col (1setOf collection)
3. and the new media Job Template attributes:
8.1.6 media-size-name (type3 keyword | name(MAX))
8.1.7 media-type (type3 keyword | name(MAX))
4. and making the following have Job Description attributes:
"ipp-attribute-fidelity"
"job-mandatory-attributes"
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sweet [mailto:mike@easysw.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 14:09
To: Dennis Carney
Cc: sm@pwg.org; ps@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> 2 more significant proposed increases in conformance
requirements for the IPP Document object spec
Dennis Carney wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
> ...
How about the following:
1. Put the non-document object stuff into a separate IPP
extension spec (I think that would just be the changes
to Get-Jobs - I'll review to see if there are others)
2. Remove the REQUIRED status from the URI-based document
operations and publish the document object spec (with
any other changes that come up after reviewing it)
3. Publish a new PSI spec which adds additional requirements
for IPP conformance in a PSI environment; this spec would
reference all of the applicable IPP documents and provide
"one-stop-shopping" for someone that wanted to determine
conformance for PSI.
No matter what way we go, I still think we'll need another round
of document review before we go to last-call and voting.
-- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike@easysw.com Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 07:17:59 EDT