PMP Mail Archive: RE: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

PMP Mail Archive: RE: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

RE: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal

Caruso,Angelo (Angelo_Caruso@wb.xerox.com)
Fri, 2 May 1997 07:27:05 PDT

I support Bill's position 100%. It's up to the implementation to decide
if a particular alert condition is critical or not. This may vary
depending on the current state of the device, the product complexity,
the target customer, etc. I also believe that linking any critical
alert condition to an offline condition is completely implementation
specific and should be optional.

Thanks,
Angelo

----------
From: pmp-owner@pwg.org
To: Angelo_Caruso@wb.xerox.com
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: Re[2]: PMP> Top 25 minus 4 conditions/alerts proposal
Date: Thursday, May 01, 1997 11:08AM

The idea that "The printer (and only the printer) decides which alert
codes are critical versus non-critical." was an original premise, and
I have been confused by apparent recent attempts to "standardize" what
is critical. I would also say that the linkage of events (e.g., a
critical alert and off-line) is also printer specific, and there
should be no dictate here. And, referring to the 'off-line' question,
there are several other persistent implemenations of what off-line
means. It is one of those things that non-printer people think is
obvious, but has so many different implementations as to be
conceptually useless.

Jay, The 'pause/resume' approach (using a new name) is probablly
reasonable, but I wonder is the specific printer pause/resume
implemmetation you mention functioannly the same as the Windows
printer pause/resume function? Or are we creating more confusion?

Bill Wagner