IPP> Re: draft-mutz-http-attributes-02.txt

IPP> Re: draft-mutz-http-attributes-02.txt

IPP> Re: draft-mutz-http-attributes-02.txt

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Mon Jun 9 10:31:47 EDT 1997


I know this must be an area of "clash" between DPA and the Printer MIB, but
wouldn't it be a good idea to  establish a convention which is compatible with
RFC1759 regarding Feed and CrossFeed marker addressability?


>>> Harry Lewis <<<




------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 06/09/97 08:23 AM ------


        ipp-owner at pwg.org
        06/06/97 08:19 PM
Please respond to ipp-owner at pwg.org @ internet




To: njoffe at cisco.com @ internet, masinter at parc.xerox.com @ internet,
Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM @ internet
cc: ipp at pwg.org @ internet, MONTULLI at netscape.com @ internet,
MUTZ at hplms26.hpl.hp.com @ internet, dwing at cisco.com @ internet,
andy_mutz at hp.com @ internet
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: draft-mutz-http-attributes-02.txt


Your solution below requires new, more complicated mechanisms for relating
pairs of attributes.  All this is just for solving a problem for one
attribute. We have tried to keep the rules for attributes simple.


I think it is simpler to have resolution be a set of keywords, than to
have some complex mechanism for relating two attributes or to add some
new value syntax for integerOrPairOfIntegers.


Bob Herriot




> From njoffe at cisco.com Fri Jun  6 13:45:40 1997
>
> At 12:42 PM 6/6/97 -0700, Robert Herriot wrote:
> >
> >> From masinter at parc.xerox.com Thu Jun  5 19:32:57 1997
> >>
> >> > None of these solutions solve the problem of the Printer's
> >> > resolutions-supported attribute which, hopefully, tells the
> >> > client exactly what resolutions the Printer supports without
> >> > any extraneous values and without a complicated structure
> >> > for the attribute.
> >>
> >> I think this is the same problem fax has, though.
> >> Why would a list of pairs of integers (x-res/y-res)
> >> or integer & ratio (x-res, aspect ratio) have 'extraneous
> >> values'? Or be a 'complicated structure'?
> >>
> >
> >If there are attributes x-res and y-res, then according to the IPP
> >model, there must be an x-res-supported and a y-res-supported in the
> >Printer.  Suppose the printer supports 300 and 300x600 and 600 Then
> >both x-res-supported and y-res-supported have values of 300 and 600.
> >Then x-res and y-res can have any of the following 4 values 300x300,
> >300x600, 600x600 and 600x300.  The last value is not a legitimate value
> >according to my original statement.
> >
> >It may be that resolutions supported by real printers and all future
> >printers can never have this problem. For example if the values are 300
> >and 300x600, then x-res-supported is 300 and y-res-supported is 300 and
> >600. No illegal combinations are possible with these values.
> >
> >That's the problem I have with the x-res, y-res solution.  If you can
> >show my that this solution cannot lead to unsupported combinations,
> >then I would agree that a pair of integers is possibly a better solution.
>
> You will need to specify the following pairs:
> x-res=300, y-res=300
> x-res=300, y-res=600
> x-res=600, y-res=600
>
> or maybe
>
> x-res=600, y-res=600
> x-res=300, y-res>=xres
>
>
> >
> >Bob Herriot
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Neil Joffe                                     Email:  njoffe at cisco.com
> Software Engineer                        Voice:  +1 (408) 527-7957
> Voice Technology Engineering     Fax:     +1 (408) 527-3907
> Cisco Systems
> San Jose
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>



More information about the Ipp mailing list