My comments have an SAI> prefix
>>> Roger K Debry <rdebry at us.ibm.com> 07/18 10:03 AM >>>
On Wednesday's call there was some discussion of a proposal to add a new
or a parameter to Validate-Job to handle print by reference. It is not
to me that we
need such an operation.
SAI> The proposal to add an operation only lasted about 5 seconds. I agree
SAI> with you - read my lips NO NEW OPERATION
Currently, I believe the function of Validate-Job is to validate the job
Printer capabilities. This should be independent of whether or not the
document will be
passed or printed by reference.
If one wants to test whether or not print-by reference is supported, then he
a Get-Operations request.
SAI> The new parameter was not to "test whether or not print-by-reference
SAI> is supported" but just the URI itself
If the objective of this new operation is to test whether or not the given
i.e. if the Printer can get it, then I am concerned that we are testing a
variable. I could try the URI at one instant and because of server or
not be able to get to the document. Furthermore, I could find the document
back okay only to have the document owner move or delete it before the
request was sent and operated upon by the Printer.
SAI> The objective of the new parameter (attribute?) is as you describe
SAI> I agree that even if you validated that the reference is good at
SAI> time, the reference may be invalid at print time. We all agreed that
SAI> needed to add some error code to show that the reference was bad
SAI> at print time therefore, if we already must include the new error code
SAI> in the set implemented by some implementation that supports print-by
SAI> reference, then why not be able to check at submission time as well.
SAI> The final proposal was to add an optional "document-uri" to Validate-
SAI> Job that would be checked for valid URI syntax only - the Printer would
SAI> not try to follow the reference and see if the server was up, the
SAI> could be located, etc.
SAI> However, if we"believe the function of Validate-Job is to validate the
SAI> parameters against Printer capabilities" then we should drop this
SAI> new proposed parameter. I could go either way. What does the rest
SAI> of the group think?