Please add mapping lists to item 2.3. to be able to convert the incoming
values of communication protocols like IPP to operating system specific
flags.
-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Schade <norbertschade@oaktech.com>
To: UPD group <upd@pwg.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 5:32 PM
Subject: UPD> Chicago agenda
>The UPDF day is Monday, Sept 11.
>The conference will start at 8.30am and last to about 5.30pm.
>We will agree on a lunch break.
>I hope I'll be in the conference room in time, as I arrive shortly before
>8am at the airport following the schedule.
>
>The Boston conference (UPDF day around October 26) is considered a bigger
>event for the UPDF group, as some things, which needed serious preparation,
>grow together.
>To aim at that major event we will have three sessions in Chicago:
>
>1. Constraints
>The discussion was started some time ago, but not finished.
>I will send some material later today or tomorrow morning to enable
>everybody to study it ahead.
>We will have DTD files as well as XML files.
>
>Statements to decide:
>1.1. Conditions for constraints can be combined with AND and/or OR.
>By nesting conditions recursively the number of levels and the complexity
>possible is practically indefinite.
>This allows a very flat architecture concerning the features of a printer
>model, as all dependencies and interdependencies will be handled as
>constraints.
>1.2. Constraints will support the default action Filter.
>Should it support messages? See proposals.
>1.3. Constraints can also be used to handle conditional selections.
>Select is considered an additional action.
>1.4. Constraints are mainly known as an instrument to avoid conflicts in
the
>user interface of the driver's dialog.
>The current proposal is supposed to be able to set conditions on almost any
>combination of fields. Those constraints can also be used when composing
>print files.
>
>We will take samples from paper handling, as that is known as an area full
>of constraints.
>
>2. Overall architecture
>The discussion about constraints will automatically lead to a more global
>conversation about the overall architecture.
>In case constraints work perfectly we may be able to flatten out the
>architecture a bit.
>2.1. Installable Options
>We will see that constraints have serious impact on the handling of
>installable options.
>2.2. General extensibility
>How easy should it be to add an installable option or new locale without
>touching the original files?
>This will be a discussion about a file structure.
>2.3. Although a Universal Printer Data Description is considered platform
>independent it should provide all information the operating system is
>expecting.
>What operating systems are exactly to be considered?
>2.4. Linux
>How much can the UPDF group help the Linux guys to implement an application
>and a printing interface? Do we want to be involved? Do they want to be
>involved?
>
>3. Font handling
>3.1. Open questions about the font handling concept so far.
>3.2. We want to prepare at least one sample implementation of a device
>resident font.
>This sample font(s) should be demonstrated in Boston.
>We want to get information about how easy it will be to create the
>information automatically, how big such a standard font may be in XML and
>how this information can be used best during install and runtime.
>
>Regards
>Norbert Schade
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 18:18:33 EDT