SM> Adding 4 more member attributes to "document-format-detail" (coll ection) attribute

SM> Adding 4 more member attributes to "document-format-detail" (coll ection) attribute

SM> Adding 4 more member attributes to "document-format-detail" (coll ection) attribute

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Tue Jan 21 21:06:10 EST 2003


PWG Semantic Model folks (and IPP WG folks),

This is a similar mail message that I've send to the CIP4 JDF Capabilities
WG.

The IPP Document object spec has a "document-format-detail" (collection)
attribute which contains member attributes that give more information about
a document, such as "document-format-version",
"document-format-natural-language", "platform", "device-id", and a recursive
"document-format-details" (collection) to describe the unique Parts of an
application/zip or multipart/related file.   See:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/pwg-ipp-document-object-latest.pdf

The IPP "document-format-details" (collection) attribute is much like the
FileSpec resource in JDF.  So I've downloaded a comparison of the IPP
document format attributes including the proposed "document-format-detail"
(collection) attribute and the JDF/1.1 FileSpec resource.  See:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/Comparison of JDF and IPP
document-format-attrs.pdf (213K)
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/Comparison of JDF and IPP
document-format-attrs.doc (264K)
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/Comparison of JDF and IPP
document-format-attrs.zip (33K)

This downloaded document proposes adding 3 more attributes to JDF FileSpec
resource: 
MimeTypeVersion, IEEE1284DeviceId, and DocumentParts. 

and 4 more member attributes to the proposed IPP "document-format-details
(collection):: 
"application", "application-version", "platform-version" (or "os-version"),
"user-file-name" 

in order to align both of them and to take the features of one and make them
available in the other.

I'll be glad to write up the new JDF FileSpec attributes (if the CIP4
Capabilities WG likes the proposed semantics) and update the IPP Document
object spec (if the PWG Semantic Model WG likes the proposed semantics). 

Comments?

Thanks,
Tom 




More information about the Sm mailing list