The minutes appear to reflect substantive material that is in or is to go in
to the specification. The following comments do not question that the
minutes correctly reflect the meeting, but are addressed to the substance of
the reported discussion. References are to page number and line number of
Page 4 Line 25: Default scan ticket: since a scan template is defined as an
unbound scan ticket, is not the term default scan template more consistent?
Page 5 line 1. Perhaps the indentation is unintended, but are "state,
State Reason" etc considered part of Scan ID? Also It would seem that there
should be common element in all the scan service headings so that they can
all be applied to the same scan service. That is, should not some sort of
Scan Service ID should be common.
Page 5, line 39: "Service Type" is eliminated because I is said to be in
Scan Service Status. Neither do I see service type in Scan Service nor would
I consider type to be a status. Of course, it is not clear what the values
of Service type are. If they are scan, print, fax etc, then the type may be
regarded as inherent in the group names (unless the same group names are
used for all services.)
Page 6, line 9: Scan Service Capabilities - Would it not be clear if these
various attributes were followed by "supported" ? e.g., Number-Up Supported
Page 7 Line 1: Since the term "Must Honor" is used exclusively in the
discussion, would not "Must honored element list" be more appropriate than
Page 7, Line 8: For my own edification, are there clear definitions of
element and element attribute? The previous paragraph talked about must
honored elements and this paragraph talked about must honored attributes.
Page 7, Line 43: I do not follow why page ranges does not make sense for
scan. It seems a useful attribute to me.
Page 8, line 41: We need some expertise here. For example physical
constituents of the CIS vs CCD based scanner are quite different.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...