IPP> TES - Xerox NLO test scripts - only b and d scripts at the BakeOf f

IPP> TES - Xerox NLO test scripts - only b and d scripts at the BakeOf f

IPP> TES - Xerox NLO test scripts - only b and d scripts at the BakeOf f

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Feb 25 14:22:53 EST 1999


Sorry for the confusion on the NLO scripts.

The IPP WG decided in November, and reflected in the November Model and
Semantics, that the semantics in the b and d scripts are what is part of the
IPP/1.0 specification.

So only scripts b and d will be tested at the Bake Off in March.

So just delete the a and e scripts.

Thanks,
Tom

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zehler, Peter 
>Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 04:38
>To: Hastings, Tom N
>Subject: FW: Xerox NLO test scripts
>
>
>Tom,
>How should I respond to this?  Perhaps a clarification to the 
>IPP DL is appropriate.
>Pete
>				Peter Zehler
>				XEROX
>				Networked Products Business Unit
>				Email: Peter.Zehler at usa.xerox.com
>				Voice:    (716) 265-8755
>				FAX:      (716) 265-8792 
>				US Mail: Peter Zehler
>				        Xerox Corp.
>				        800 Phillips Rd.
>				        M/S 111-02J
>				        Webster NY, 14580-9701
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Suzuki, Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie_Suzuki at cissc.canon.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 4:39 PM
>To: 'Zehler, Peter'
>Subject: Xerox NLO test scripts
>
>
>Hi,
>
>There are 4 NLO test scripts that Xerox redistributed.  Here are the
>comments within them:
>
>		@ NLO3of4a.test - a is 1 of 2 Get-Jobs tests - 
>job NLO MUST
>be returned
>		@ The 2 tests are intended to help decide which 
>semantics to
>agree on.
>		@ Test a:  Job-level Natural Language (NL) 
>Override (NLO) of
>Get-Jobs operation
>		@ according to the June draft which MUST be 
>present if job
>is different
>		@ from the natural language being returned in 
>the Get-Jobs
>response.
>		@ Includes the clarification that a redundant 
>job-level NLO
>is ok for Get-Jobs.
>
>		# a is 1 of 2 test - tests for the June 
>specification, i.e.,
>that the
>		# job-level natural language override MUST be 
>returned, if
>the job level 
>		# NL is different from the job attribute NL.
>
>		# b is 2 of 2 test - tests proposed 
>simplification, i.e.,
>the job-level 
>		# natural language override MUST NOT be returned.
>
>		@ NLO4of4d.test - d is 1 of 2 Get-Job-Attributes tests -
>June draft attr NLO
>		@ The 2 tests are intended to help decide which 
>semantics to
>agree on.
>		@ Test d: Attribute-level Natural Language (NL) Override
>(NLO)
>		@ according to the June draft which MUST be 
>present if the
>attribute NL is 
>		@ different from the NL being returned in the
>"attributes-natural-language"
>		@ operation attribute response.
>		@ Includes the clarification that a redundant
>attribute-level NLO is ok for
>		@ any response.
>
>		# d is 1 of 2 tests:  tests Get-Job-Attributes operation
>according to the 
>		# June draft, including clarification that redundant
>attribute NLO is ok.
>
>		# e is 2 of 2 tests:  tests proposed 
>simplification to get
>rid of
>		# nameWithoutLanguage and to always use explicit natural
>language.
>
>		# If we can't agree on either, we might agree on the
>fallback:
>		# that senders SHOULD send WithLanguage forms only, but
>receivers MUST accept 
>		# both.  Therefore, if we agree to the 
>fallback, IPP Printer
>objects MUST still 
>		# pass the d tests.
>
>Which of these tests will be used at the bake-off?
>
>Thank you,
>Stephanie Suzuki
>



More information about the Ipp mailing list