IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

IPP>REQ comments on latest requirements

Don Wright don at lexmark.com
Wed Mar 19 08:21:14 EST 1997


Bob Harriot said:


>page 8:  Change your correction to have more parallel language, e.g.:
>
> This can be done as follows:
>   - the end-user selects the correct printer driver
>   - the printer automatically selects the proper interpreter
>   - the end-user uses some other manual procedure


Sounds good!


>page 20: section 8.8
> Shouldn't the response be labeled: "Print job rejected"  It is not the
>   case that the synchronous response would say "print job accepted - printing
>   failed".


OK


>page 37: section 8.14.
>
>  I think we agreed that the last request "Here is last part of the document to
>   print" and response would be deleted and replaced with words saying that 
the job
>   resumed printing.


I struggled with this one because in the scenario the printer is not capable of 
spooling.  I think this case simply indicates that an error occurred while there
was still data to be sent to this printer and once the problem was fixed, 
printing
resumed and more print data was sent.  The cases we discussed where 
there was language like this were all chunking cases.This is not a chunking 
case but rather a non-spooling printer case.  I think I should leave it as it 
stands.  
  
 
Don



More information about the Ipp mailing list