IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Initial Version of Job Extensions spe

IPP> Initial Version of Job Extensions spec available for a future SM telecon

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 21:16:28 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "IPP> Some additions to the Job Extensions spec [pwg-iso-a4-or-letter m edia, "job-state-reasons": 'errors-detected', 'warnings-detected']"

    Peter, Ira, and I have been working on the Job Extensions spec following the
    agreement to break the original Document Object spec into three
    specifications.

    I've posted an initial version of the Job Extensions spec for review at some
    future SM telecon (not this coming Thursday's meeting which is for the
    Document Object spec that Peter released).

    The files are available in a new JOBX sub-directory:
    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_JOBX/wd-ippjobx10-20030519.pdf.zip
    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_JOBX/wd-ippjobx10-20030519.doc.zip
    Ignore the earlier versions with revision marks. (The -rev.pdf shows the
    revisons from the May 18 version when I removed the -target attributes and 7
    ISSUES. I also made the rev with PDF Maker which doesn't have hot links for
    cross references, so its 170KB instead of 923KB, so I didn't zip it and its
    very fast to make.)
    The following summaries of the changes:
    Version 0.2, 19 May 2003:
            1. Split document out of Document Object specification.
            2. Removed all Document Description attributes and the concept
    of Job Level and Document Level. That terminology is introduced in the
    Document Object spec [ippdoc]. Now [ippdoc] is only an Informative
    Reference, not a Normative Reference.
            3. Did not include the document-format-target and
    document-format-version-target attributes. PSI has their own definitions
    and we can avoid the discussion as to whether they should be Document
    Template attributes or Operation attributes on Document Creation operations
    and whether there should be a "document-format-target-default" and a
    "document-format-version-target-default".

    There are only two issues remaining:

    ISSUE 01: Or should the "document-format-version-default" be a 1setOf since
    the version string is self-identifying with the PDL? Then the different
    defaults could be indicated for each document format?

    ISSUE 02: Bob's issue about truth in advertising. Don't penalize truth.
    Does allowing these Operation attribute keyword names in the
    "user-defined-attributes-supported" Printer attribute allow the Printer to
    accept any values without returning the attribute in the Unsupported
    Attributes group?

    Tom

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 19 2003 - 21:16:50 EDT