attachment-0001

I'm afraid we are 1. Over complicating the Document Object   - This is really beginning to look like IPPv2 2. Risking lackluster adoption based on unnecessary mandatory operations Look at the premise behind (2), below. "... users should be able to modify a document object after the job is submitted...". This might be something nice for some users but there are simpler alternatives (such as canceling the job and resubmitting it).... that don't require an architectural mandate. As for (4) guaranteeing pdl-override... I've always been opposed to the concept of pdl-override... it's premise being that we can't keep ourselves from generating Postscript with embedded production instructions and even if we could there is a mass of Postscript (still) being used for interchange. This was not true when me made the error of specifying pdl-override in IPP and it is less true today. Separating content from production instruction via the use of a job ticket has always been the goal. That goal is now within reach. I think, then, it is time to consider deprecating pdl-override...certainly not elevating the "feature" by mandating further complexity. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org 04/17/2003 03:00 PM <td>                To:        sm@pwg.org         cc:        ps@pwg.org, ipp@pwg.org         Subject:        IPP> 4 significant proposed increases in conformance requirements for         the IPP Document object spec</table> <tt>Attendees:  Harry Lewis, Bob Taylor, Dave Hall, Lee Farrell, Gail Songer, Ira McDonald, Peter Zehler, Tom Hastings (did I miss anyone?) At today's PWG Semantic Model telecon we did a page by page review of the IPP Document Object Spec in preparation for Last Call: ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/wd-ippdoc10-20030407.pdf.zip This mail note contains several significant changes in Printer conformance requirements that we agreed to for the indicated reasons.  However, because of their significance, we agreed to post these changes to the DL for a two week comment period.  Objectsion and comments on these changes are due by Friday, May 2, end of business.  Silence will be interpreted as approval, so if you object, please send email. The other less significant agreements will be posted in a separate mail note as minutes.  We resolved all of the issues and did the page by page review up to page 42 Table 7.  We will continue the page by page at another two hour telecon next Thursday, April 24, same time: 1-3 PM EDT (10-12 PDT) with the same version of the specification.  Same call-in number and HP webex. Agreed to significant conformance requirements changes: 1. Change the Send-URI operation and the corresponding "reference-uri-schemes-supported" (1setOf uriScheme) Printer Description attribute from OPTIONAL to REQUIRED for a Printer to support.  We agreed that a conforming implementation MAY have an empty list for the "reference-uri-schemes-supported" Printer Description attribute. Reason:  PSI requires this operation (and has no OPTIONAL attributes). Optional operations are much less likely to get support by clients.  It is best practice for an OPTIONAL extension specification (such as this spec) to have no OPTIONAL operations, so that user clients will receive the same level of service from all Printer implementations that support this extension. 2. Change the Set-Document-Attributes operation from OPTIIOAL to REQUIRED for a Printer to support. Reason: This is the Document object spec and users should be able to modify a Document object after the job is submitted.  Optional operations are much less likely to get support by users clients.  It is best practice for an OPTIONAL extension specification (such as this spec) to have no OPTIONAL operations, so that user clients will receive the same level of service from all Printer implementations that support this extension. 3. Change the Set-Job-Attributes operation from OPTIONAL to RECOMMENDED for a Printer to support. Reason: To go along with the change in the conformance requirements for the Set-Document-Attributes operation.  However, don't REQUIRE Set-Job-Attributes, since most of the interesting attributes are document attributes, not job attributes. 4. Add an OPTIONAL 'guaranteed" value (see [ippsave] section 8.1) for the "pdl-overrides-supported" Printer Description attribute (REQUIRED in [rfc2911] section 4.4.28) to augment 'not-attempted', and 'attempted' values.  Also add a REQUIRED "pdl-override-attributes-guaranteed" (1setOf type2 keyword) Printer Description attribute.  The values indicate those Job Template and Document Template attributes for which the Printer guarrantees success in overriding the corresponding instruction in the PDL data.  The values of this attribute returned in the Get-Printer-Attributes response MAY be colored by the "document-format" operation attribute supplied by the client in the request, if the Printer's guarrantee depends on the document format.  A conforming Printer MAY return 'none' as the value.   Reason:  The IPPFAX needs the ability for the Printer to indicate which Job Template and Document Template attributes the Printer is able to guarantee success in overriding the PDL.  Waiting for the Production Printing Set2 [ippsave] to be updated does meet the schedule for IPPFAX which is also trying to go out to last call.  Also this extension is analoguous to our addition of "job-mandatory-attributes" to give a finer granularity to "ipp-attribute-fidelity" (boolean) operation attribute.   Please send comments by Friday, May 2, 2003. Thanks, Tom </tt>