IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language override (NLO) issue s 1.46, 1.47, 1.48

IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language override (NLO) issue s 1.46, 1.47, 1.48

IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language override (NLO) issue s 1.46, 1.47, 1.48

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Nov 5 22:15:34 EST 1998


At our IPP telecon, Wednesday, 11/04/1998, we tentatively agreed to the
following decisions.  Please response to these tentative decisions on the
mailing list so that we may make final decisions at the upcoming IPP WG
meeting next week.

Decision 1: 
Yes for nlo 3 of 4. (Issue 1.47) 
A name/textWithoutLanguage does not get its implicit 
language from the attributes-natural-language attribute in the job attribute

group in a Get-Jobs response. It always gets the language for each job in
the response from the attributes-natural-language operation attribute.  
This is a change from the June draft by deleting a paragraph in section
3.2.6.2 Get-Jobs response (that required the job-level natural language
override to be returned for each job whose natural language differed from
that of the response as a whole).

Decision 2:
No for nlo 4 of 4.  (Issue 1.48)
Keep both text/nameWithLanguage and 
text/nameWithoutLanguage attribute syntaxes for 'text'/'name' attributes as
in the June draft. Thus, when a text/name attribute value's natural language
is the same as the attributes-natural-language operation attribute, the
value in the protocol can either contain text/nameWithLanguage or
text/nameWithoutLanguage.


We also discussed nlo 2 of 4.  (Issue 1.46)
To clarify that a request or response MAY contain a redundant use of
text/nameWithLanguage, i.e., the explicit natural language of an attribute
value is the same as the natural language specified for the request or
response as a whole in the attributes-natural-language operation attribute.
We agreed that to make it simply a MAY (implementer option), since some
implementers want to remove redundancy in their requests and response, while
other implementers want to always pass name and text with explicit natural
languages.  Thus we could not agree to make redundant NLO at the attribute
level a SHOULD or a SHOULD NOT, but merely a MAY.


Tom Hastings
(310) 333-6413




More information about the Ipp mailing list