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(I guess you've since withdrawn such renaming...thanks.)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
applicable.
...jay
----- 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 -----