I tend to agree with Harry completely on this matter.
While there is the possibility of "opening the floodgates"
for adding all kinds of bizarre bits, the fact is that all
printers share this kind of important state information.
Besides, no one else besides Harry (aka IBM) have *ever*
asked for additional bits of any kind.
IMHO, Harry's suggestion is well thought out, very useful,
and something most vendors will want to implement to improve
overall customer satisfaction.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm at underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis wrote:
>> Good question. We have states... like "warming up", "down", etc. Then, one
> interpretation, is that we have "bits" that can indicate "sub-states" that
> pertain specifically to error conditions. An overdue PM falls into this
> category A bit is perfect - better than a warning alert which is managed out of
> the table. I don't think frequency of occurrence was ever a criteria for adding
> bits. I guess you are asking what are the criteria? I guess I don't know. How
> about... someone asked for one, the group reviewed it and there wasn't a major
> good reason not to? ;-) It's not like there's either a major shortage of bits
> or an overwhelming onrush of requests.. is there?
>> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>>pmp-owner at pwg.org on 12/12/97 04:12:13 AM
> Please respond to pmp-owner at pwg.org @ internet
> To: pmp at pwg.org @ internet
> cc:
> Subject: Re: PMP> Another hrBit
>> What is the justification for adding new bits to the
> prtDetectedErrorState HR MIB byte? It appears to me that
> we are going overboard in assigning new bits to less than
> frequent error conditions.
> Lloyd Young