[Pwg-Announce] 1284 Device ID Last CAll and Registration of additional PDLs in IANA PrtInterpreterLangFamilyTC

[Pwg-Announce] 1284 Device ID Last CAll and Registration of additional PDLs in IANA PrtInterpreterLangFamilyTC

[Pwg-Announce] 1284 Device ID Last CAll and Registration of additional PDLs in IANA PrtInterpreterLangFamilyTC

William Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Tue Mar 16 18:14:45 UTC 2010


Greetings:

There have been no additional comments on candidates for inclusion in the
IANA PrtInterpreterLangFamilyTC. However, it appears that some members have
linked this question to responding to the PWG last call request on the
Command Set Format for IEEE 1284 Device ID.  (
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmp1284cmdset10-20100125.pdf>
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/pmp/wd/wd-pmp1284cmdset10-20100125.pdf). Please
understand that, although these two issues are related:

1.     The last call request is not a vote on the document, it is merely a
way of determining that sufficient members are aware of the document and
have had an opportunity to voice their concerns before the document is
finalized and put to ballot

2.     The issue of whether the document provides a sufficient mechanism for
identifying the important printer language and their variations has been
brought up and is being addressed as part of the resolution of last call
comments. 

3.     Adding entries to the IANA PrtInterpreterLangFamilyTC is one way of
addressing this issue of providing sufficient information in the IEE 1284
Device ID Command string. However, requests to add  and entry can be made at
any time by supplying the information necessary for the MIB entry to the PWG
and the MIB Experts. Submitting the request to the PMP or WIMS list will
ensure that the request will be considered and, in the case of any
appropriate printer language, will be honored.

 

Although I have no objection to adding more concise CMD strings, it has been
pointed out that in many cases there are so many variations of the language
extant that it is not feasible to fully characterize the language with a
simple string. Therefore, my personal opinion on this issue is that  the CMD
string, as the Printer MIB object is named,  need only identify the language
family. That is, it must be sufficient to identify the language format and
syntax and to allow basic communication using the printer language. More
details can be obtained via MIB queries or, in most cases,  by queries in
the basic printer language.

 

The potential benefit of the Command Set Format for IEEE 1284 Device ID
specification is to provide this basic language information in a consistent,
standard, machine-readable way so that it may be used in the various
contexts in which it is specified. This adds a significant benefit to the
efficient interface with hardcopy devices at comparatively little cost. I
strongly urge all interested parties to communicate their concerns, if any,
during this extended last call period; and I humbly request that PWG members
promptly acknowledge their awareness of the document and either their
comments and/or willingness to vote on it.

 

Many thanks,

 

Bill Wagner, Chair, PMP and WIMS/PWG

 

 

 

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/pwg-announce/attachments/20100316/341a4a98/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the pwg-announce mailing list