We missed considering this old proposal at the telecon today.
I hope that we could consider it at the IPP meeting next week
in the vein of "plugging holes"
(and because it was an old action item from 8/20).
Thanks,
Tom
>Return-Path: <ipp-owner at pwg.org>
>X-Sender: hastings at zazen>Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:13:00 PDT
>To: ipp at pwg.org>From: Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
>Subject: IPP> MOD - RESEND: proposed "document-formats-detected" attribute
>Sender: ipp-owner at pwg.org>>I'm resending the proposal that I made on 8/20
>which was my action item from the 8/20 IPP telecon. The action item was
>to provide a Printer description attribute that lists the document-formats
>that the printer can automatically detect/sense. In other words, to provide
>a Printer description attribute that specifies which document-formats
>that the Printer can detect when the document-format is either (1)
>unspecified or (2) specified as 'application/octet-stream' or whatever we
>specify in IPP (or the registry) is the equivalent of the 'langAutomatic'
>Printer MIB enum.
>>Harald suggested that we could use 'application/octet-stream' MIME-type to
>indicate automatic document-format sensing or we might want to register
>a MIME-type expoicitly for that purpose. So one of the justfications for this
>new attribute: that we couldn't have a MIME-type for automatic sensing goes
>away. However, I still believe that we still need the attribute so that
>the client and end-users can determine which document-formats are automatically
>sensed and which ones require that the end-user or client specify
>the document-format as an IPP input attribute.
>>Here is the proposal again. As before I've included several different
>attribute names and values for us to pick from, depending on what gets the
>idea across the most clearly.
>>(Also I removed the first justification for the attribute).
>>I hope we could discuss it at the Wed 8/10 telecon.
>>Thanks,
>Tom
>>>Return-Path: <ipp-owner at pwg.org>
>>X-Sender: hastings at zazen>>Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:09:18 PDT
>>To: ipp at pwg.org>>From: Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
>>Subject: IPP> MOD - document-format-supported using MIME types and
>> 'automatic'
>>Cc: jmp at pwg.org, pmp at pwg.org>>Sender: ipp-owner at pwg.org>>>>We had an IPP telecon today and discussed the issue of changing IPP from
>>using Printer MIB enums for document-format to using MIME-types.
>>>>Attending: Steve Zilles, Ira McDonald, Lee Farrell, Roger deBry, Tom Hastings
>>>>I took the action item to write up the discussion on this point.
>>>snip..
>>>From the Printer MIB enum description:
>>langAutomatic(37),
>> -- Automatic PDL sensing. Automatic
>> -- sensing of the interpreter
>> -- language family by the printer
>> -- examining the document content.
>> -- Which actual interpreter language
>> -- families are sensed depends on
>> -- the printer implementation.
>>>>>>The solution that we came up with today [8/20] for IPP is to add a
>>Printer description attribute called: "document-formats-detected" (or
>>"document-formats-auto-sensed"?). This new IPP attribute solves the problem:
>>>>Make it clear to the client which of the document-formats-supported
>>can be auto-sensed. Some implementations support more document-formats
>>than can be automatically sensed. For example, some implementation support
>>PostScript, PJL, and some document format that cannot be reliabilbly sensed.
>>>>The "document-formats-detected" Printer attribute would be multi-valued
>>that parallels the "document-formats-supporter Printer attribute and
>>has a value for each of the values of the "document-formats-supported"
>>Printer attribute. Each value would be a keyword that indicates whether the
>>corresponding document format is auto-sensed or not. Perhaps, we can even
>>have more than two keyword values depending on the degree or reliability
>>that the PDL can be sensed. The keyword values might be:
>>>> 'auto-detected'
>> 'auto-detected-best-effort'
>> 'not-auto-detected'
>>>>or using the Printer MIB terminology of 'sense', instead of 'detect':
>>>> 'auto-sensed'
>> 'auto-sensed-best-effort'
>> 'not-auto-sensed'
>>>>Alternatively, the same values could indicate whether the
>>client needs to supply the "document-format" attribute when submitting
>>each document or not, so that the following keyword values might be better
>>names for the corresponding semantics:
>>>> 'document-format-not-required'
>> 'document-format-recommended'
>> 'document-format-required'
>>>For example, the MIME-type for simpleText (whatever that is) would
>be indicated with the value: 'document-format-required'. Then it would be
>to the clear to the client/end-user that the client must explicitly supply
>the IPP attribute:
>> "document-format"='application/simpleText'
>>to force simple text, such as a PostScript programmer dumping a PostScript
>program as simple text, in order to prevent the Printer from autosensing
>the file and interpreting it as PostScript.
>>snip...
>>>Comments?
>>>>Tom
>>>