SM> Integrate "-actual" attributes into the document object s pec

SM> Integrate "-actual" attributes into the document object s pec

SM> Integrate "-actual" attributes into the document object s pec

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Wed Apr 16 20:56:07 EDT 2003


Dennis,

Thanks for the comments.
 
Briefly:
1. I agree with you that the Document Template attributes need to be
clarified that they share the same "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" Printer
attributes with the corresponding Job Template attributes.

2. I agree that we want the spec to extend Document Template attributes to
have corresponding OPTIONAL "xxx-actual" Document Description attributes.

3. I agree that we don't want to extend the -actual concept to the Operation
attributes that have corresponding "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" Printer
Description attributes.

See my detailed replies bracked by <th> and </th> below.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 16:16
To: sm at pwg.org
Cc: Harry Lewis
Subject: SM> Integrate "-actual" attributes into the document object
spec

In "Appendix A: Change Log" of the IPP "-actual" attributes extension
(ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_ACT/pwg-ipp-actual-attrs-latest.pdf), is
the following text:

    Version 0.3, 16 December 2002, as a result of the PWG Semantic Model
telecon, December 12, 2002:
        1. Removed all references to the document object. Extending this
concept to the document object will be done
            in the document object specification only. In this way, moving
this specification forward on the standards
            track will not be held up.

As far as I can see, the concept of the "-actual" attributes has not been
extended to the Document object in the latest version of the Document
Object spec.  I assume we still want to do this--is there any feeling
otherwise among the group?
<th>
Yes, I would think we should extend the Document object to have "xxx-actual"
Job Description attributes. 
</th>

If we *do* want to do this, how to do it?  In fact, I'm not sure in reading
the spec (maybe I missed it?) that it is ever made clear that Document
Template attributes have corresponding "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported"
attributes--is that because all Document Template attributes are also Job
Template attributes and as such have "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported"
attributes by definition (from 2911)?
<th>
Yes, the spec could be clearer that Document Template attributes are just
the same as Job Template attributes and share the same "xxx-supported",
"xxx-default", and "xxx-ready" Document Template Printer attributes with the
Job Template attributes.
</th>

However, the "-actual" attributes are a bit different.  For every *Document
Template* attribute, there would be a corresponding *Document Description*
"-actual" attribute.  This fact cannot, I don't think, be considered to be
implied by 2911 or by the "-actual" spec (which as shown above does not
even mention the document object).
<th>
Agree, so need to add some statement to the Document Description Attributes
section about there being corresponding "xxx-actual" Document Description
attributes for each Document Template attribute.
</th>

So:
ISSUE 1: In chapter 7, OK to add a mention of the extension of the
"-actual" concept to the Document object?
<th>
Yes.
</th>

ISSUE 2: In addition, does the way that "xxx-default", "xxx-supported", and
"xxx-ready" apply to the Document object need to be made more clear?
<th>
Yes.
</th>

In addition, in Table 7, which lists all the Operation attributes, there
are columns for "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported".  I guess the concept is
to extend the concept of "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" to certain
Operation attributes, instead of simply having those concepts apply to
Template attributes.
<th>
Yes.
</th>

ISSUE 3: In this case, would we want to do the same for "-actual"s?
<th>
But I don't think that we want to extend these Operation attributes that
have "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" to also have "xxx-actual" Document
Description attributes.  The one that we do have is
"document-format-details-detected", so named since it isn't a -actual, just
as we have done for the "document-format" operation attribute with
"document-format-detected".
</th>

This is a complicated situation, I believe, since we already have two
cases:
1) For job-impressions, job-k-octets, and job-media-sheets, we already have
the concept that these are copied to Job Description attributes and that
these three (and *only* these three, I believe) can be updated by the
printer to contain a "more accurate" (see 2911, section 4.3.17) value than
was provided.  So for these, they are sort-of their own "actual" attribute.
<th>
True.
</th>

2) For document-format and document-format-version, we have created new
attributes to essentially be "actual" values: document-format-detected and
document-format-version-detected.  We created the "detected" name to make
sure it was not confused with the "-actual"s, since the "-actual" concept
(as written) doesn't extend to Operation attributes.
<th>
Yes.
</th>

My personal vote is to *not* extend the concept of "-actual"s to Operation
attributes, but I wanted to bring it up to see what others think.  My
reason for not extending them is to keep the concept "clean"--it only
applies to Template attributes, not to all Template attributes, plus those
Operation attributes that have currently been identified as having them.
Also, extending the concept to Operation attributes conflicts somewhat with
the situation in #1 above--2911 says that those three *are* some sort of
"actual"s.  If we extend the concept, do we deprecate that behavior?  But
then clients that don't implement the document object will no longer get
the same "results" from servers that do implement it.
<th>
I agree with you that we don't want to extend these Operation attributes
that have "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" to also have "xxx-actual"
Document Description attributes.  The one that we do have is
"document-format-details-detected", so named since it isn't a -actual, just
as we have done for the "document-format" operation attribute with
"document-format-detected".
</th>

Comments anyone?

Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems



More information about the Sm mailing list