As much as I'd like one all encompassing UPDF, I think having only one PDL per
UPDF is the only practical solution.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group *
* Chair, IEEE MSC *
* *
* Director, Alliances & Standards *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) *
**********************************************
"Norbert Schade" <norbertschade%oaktech.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 03/26/2001
12:17:06 PM
To: "UPD group" <upd%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com>
cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: UPD> PDL per UPDF
We never finally decided whether we will allow exactly one PDL per UPDF
description or more.
I put that on vote.
Please send your vote this week.
We will decide on Friday, March 30th, late afternoon.
My personal vote is one PDL only.
Reasons:
Don't move more information around than you need.
Editing of XML files is easier, when there are parrallel files (master
description, command sequences, locales, etc.) instead of editing different
sections in very different areas of one huge file.
Development is possible in steps done by different groups, while one huge
description probably never gets done.
Regards
Norbert Schade
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 27 2001 - 08:13:22 EST