IPP>MOD - best effort

IPP>MOD - best effort

IPP>MOD - best effort

JK Martin jkm at underscore.com
Mon Jul 21 18:50:20 EDT 1997

Sorry, but what I meant to say was that there was no obviously
good reason to rename "best-effort" to "may-ignore-attributes".
(I guess you've since withdrawn such renaming...thanks.)

I do, however, like moving "best-effort" to a parameter where


----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:03:35 -0700
From: Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Herriot)
To: ipp at pwg.org, jkm at underscore.com, rdebry at us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: IPP>MOD - best effort

There is plenty wrong with best-effort. Perhaps you didn't read the
fine print in the current model document.  It is currently 
defined as a job template attribute which means:

   o there is a job attribute "best-effort" for specifying what the 
     client wants.
   o there is a printer default "best-effort" which says whether
     the printer defaults it behavior to best-effort or not if a 
     client doesn't specify this attribute.
   o there is a printer "best-effort-supported" attribute which is unlike
     most xxx-supported attributes. It is not a set of possible
     values, namely "true" and "false" values. Instead, it is either
     "true" or "false"
         * "true" means that a client can specify either the value 
           "true" or "false" or and the printer default "best-effort"
           can have the value of true or false"
         * "false" means that a client can specify only the value of
           "false" and the default "best-effort" can have only the
           value of "false".
         NOTE: it is believed that no implementation would support
         a "best-effort" job attribute of "true" only.
    o this attribute has to be processed before others are processed
      because it affects the processing of them, but it need not
      be the first attribute.
    o the "best-effort" substitution is somewhat undefined and 
      potentially complex.

Compare the above with what I proposed:

    o I replace 3 job-template attributes by a single parameter
     "may-ignored-attributes" which is either true, false or omitted
      (false is default).  All printers support both values because 
      it is easier to support "best-effort" as "ignore the attribute".

    o I make it easy to process the "may-ignore-attributes" value before 
      any attributes are processed because the information is
      in the parameter section which precedes any attributes.

Now I suggest that we forget about "may-ignore-attributes" job
attribute, that I proposed.  It really isn't necessary and deflects
from the discussion. The single parameter is sufficient.

Do you still believe that the "3 job-template attributes" proposal is 
simpler than the "single parameter" proposal?

Bob Herriot

> From jkm at underscore.com Mon Jul 21 07:58:51 1997
> I completely agree with Roger.  I just don't see the added value
> here...but I certainly see the additional complexity and resulting
> confusion.
> There is nothing wrong (semantically) with "best-effort".  Let's
> leave it alone, but make the obvious clarifications in the Model
> document with regard to Job templates, etc.
> 	...jay
> ----- Begin Included Message -----
> From ipp-owner at pwg.org Mon Jul 21 10:01 EDT 1997
> From: Roger K Debry <rdebry at us.ibm.com>
> To: <Ipp at pwg.org>
> Subject: IPP>MOD - best effort
> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:54:56 -0400
> >There should be an OPTIONAL job attribute may-ignore-attributes which
> >is set by the parameter may- ignore-attributes. This attribute is
> >MANDATORY if Create-Job is supported because Send-Document and Send-URI
> >use the value set by Create-Job. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect it to be
> >implemented.  It would be useful in a future resubmit-job operation
> Now let me see, if I understand .... we don't like the concept of
> best-effort as an attribute, so we rename it, make it a parameter, then
> add an optional job attribute with the same name, and then have the
> parameter set the attribute, except sometimes the attribute (or is it
> the parameter) is mandatory.  Did I get it right??????
> Excuse me, but I think we just added a ton of confusion and didn't change
> things one bit!
> ----- End Included Message -----

----- End Included Message -----

More information about the Ipp mailing list