Tom,
I have only just joined this group, is their not substantial patent protection
in this area , especially as it relates to some recent work.I know of work back
in 1995,93 and 91 for an example that does have real relevance.
"Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
> I'm keeping track of all comments on the RFC 2910 and 2911 for the next time
> we publish it. So please send any such comments as Harry has done to the
> IPP DL and I'll acknowledge and incorporate into my copy for next
> publication.
>> In order to avoid indentation errors next time with the RFC editor, I'm
> going to include the .3 inch indentation in the .doc file for the
> proportional text versions as well. Then whenever we produce the I-D in
> .txt form, it will be conforming to the IETF formatting requirements.
>> Thanks,
> Tom
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 17:08
> To: Harry Lewis
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: RE: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job Attribute groups
> [RFC 2911]
>> Harry,
>> Yes, I agree that Group 3 is the data, and is not attributes, so it would
> have been better to have just deleted the "of attributes" phrase, so it
> would have read:
>> The following groups are supplied as part of the Print-Job Request:
>> Group 1: Operation Attributes
> Group 2: Job Template Attributes
> Group 3: Document Content
>> About your comment on the indentation, I agree that the indentation in the
> RFC 2911 .txt version is mis-leading. The .txt file that we published as
> the INTERNET-DRAFT had the text you refer to at the left margin. The RFC
> editor moved all text, except headers, right 3 spaces. However, for this
> paragraph, they moved it right 6 spaces, instead of 3, and we (I) missed
> that in proof-reading the .txt from the RFC Editor.
>> Regrettably under IETF rules, once an RFC is published, it cannot be
> corrected (except to publish a new RFC with a new number that obsoletes or
> updates a previously published RFC).
>> Sorry,
> Tom
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 07:31
> To: hastings
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: IPP> Editorial - IPP Model - Print-Job Attribute groups
>> Tom, I'm reading RFC2911 (IPP Model). In section 3.2.1.1 Print-Job
> Request, something seems less than coherent. Basically, it reads... "The
> following groups of attributes are supplied as part of the Print-Job
> Request:
>> Group 1: Operation Attributes
> Group 2: Job Template Attributes
> Group 3: Document Content
>> Is it correct to refer to Document Content as an attribute in this manner?
>> Also, the continuation of 3.2.1.1 after the first sentence in "Group 3"
> (The client MUST supply the document data to be processed)... should not
> be indented under the "Group 3" sub-heading as it appears to summarize the
> entire section (3.2.1.1).
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lombardiv.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 290 bytes
Desc: Card for Victor J. Lombardi
Url : http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20010109/92c8feee/lombardiv-0001.vcf