Maybe we can discuss sending mail to multiple DLs at the PWG meeting of what
to do when a message affect multiple PWG standards activities. Is the PWG
DL sufficiently broad to cover a number of DLs? For example, how many of
the IPP members are also PWG members? How many PMP members are also PWG
members? How many UPD members are also PWG members?
Or we could send one message to PWG Announce, with an indication of which DL
to carry on replies. But this would be too broad, since PWG Announce gets
to all PWG DLs.
I used to get a separate copy of each message for each DL with the
appropriate XXX> prefix on the subject line. Recently, I'm only getting one
XXX> prefix but still a copy to each DL. Did you change something on the
I use Outlook, so I set up filters to filter into separate folders for each
DL, so I don't mind getting duplicates. However, for those who read all
their incoming mail as a single thread, it would be a pain to get
duplicates, especially now that the XXX> prefix on the subject line is fixed
at only of the DLs for all copies.
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 12:08
To: Hastings, Tom N
Subject: Re: IPP> RE: PWG> Question about Localization
Please resist the urge to copy multiple mailing lists. Pick the most
appropriate one and be done with it.
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group *
* Chair, IEEE MSC *
* Director, Alliances & Standards *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) *
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com at interlock.lexmark.com> on
04/16/2001 02:56:01 PM
To: Ray Casterline <RayCasterline%lhsolutions.com at interlock.lexmark.com>,
pwg%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com
cc: "ipp (E-mail)" <ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>, "pmp (E-mail)"
<pmp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com> (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: IPP> RE: PWG> Question about Localization
You should look at RFC 2569, entitled: "Mapping between LPD and IPP
Protocols". IPP (RFC 2911) has a lot of character set and localization
semantics in it, so those semantics may help in understanding how they might
apply to LPD using the mapping semantics. (I have not studied RFC 259 from
this perspective). I suspect that RFC 1179 which attempted to document LPD
practice didn't go into such areas.
There is also RFC 2708 "Job Submission Protocol Mapping Recommendations for
the Job Monitoring MIB" that deals with mapping job attributes of PServer
and RPrinter to the PWG Job Monitoring MIB (RFC 2707), that might also help.
The PWG Job Monitoring MIB had localization and character set support in it.
If you find that these documents are insufficient to answer your questions,
please post the questions again to these lists, since such documents should
include character and localization considerations.
From: Ray Casterline [mailto:RayCasterline at lhsolutions.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 14:31
To: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> Question about Localization
I had some questions with regards to localization
specifically for PServer, RPrinter and LPD.
The questions are as follows:
Character set/encoding supported?
Character set identification?
Character set negotiation?
Character Transformation encoding?
Specifically in regards to:
Print server name,
Does anyone know of any RFC's or other documents that
I can get access to that would help me resolve these
Thanks in advance for any and all help.
Principle Lighthouse Solutions, LLC
716.218.9910 - voice 2604 Elmwood Ave., #346
716.218.9913 - fax Rochester, NY 14618