IPP> MOD - NLO 2 of 4: Clarification that Natural Language O verride M AY be used redundantly

IPP> MOD - NLO 2 of 4: Clarification that Natural Language O verride M AY be used redundantly

IPP> MOD - NLO 2 of 4: Clarification that Natural Language O verride M AY be used redundantly

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed Nov 4 05:55:01 EST 1998



>-----Original Message-----
>From: henrik.holst at i-data.com [mailto:henrik.holst at i-data.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 01:19
>To: Hastings, Tom N
>Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - NLO 2 of 4: Clarification that Natural Language
>O verride M AY be used redundantly
>
>
>Tom wrote,
>
>>Can a Get-Jobs response redundantly return a job-level
>>"attributes-natural-language" (when not requested) which has the same
>>natural language as the job?
>
>Yes, I can't see why it couldn't.

That is what Issue 1.51 asks.

>
>
>>If yes, then it may be simpler for IPP Printer
>>implementations to ALWAYS add the "attributes-natural-language" in the
>>returned Job Attributes (first), whether the job is in that natural
>language
>>or not.
>
>And a more simpler IPP printer implementation, would be to 
>always return
>the 'name'
>and 'text' attributes with language, even the response was without.

True.  If we agree to make the change for vote 4 of 4.

But if that fails, then we still have to decide about the vote 3 of 4 on NLO
at the job-level for Get-Jobs.

And if we allow redundant job-level NLO, what if the client is requesting
"attributes-natural-language"?
A current implementation that we are testing the scripts with, returns
"attributes-natural-language" twice
with the same value (which our scripts reject).  Issue 1.52 is asking
whether returning two "attributes-natural-language" is conforming or not.
If we agree it is, we will change our scripts.


>
>Henrik Holst
>
>


Tom Hastings
(310) 333-6413




More information about the Ipp mailing list