PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Localization conclusion - prtGeneralPrinterName

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Localization conclusion - prtGeneralPrinterName

Re: PMP> Localization conclusion - prtGeneralPrinterName

Tom Hastings (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:14:58 PDT

At 11:15 07/24/97 PDT, JK Martin wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Excellent summation of our current alternatives. I also agree with
>you that we should take the time to resolve this in a fully informed
>manner, and not just sweep it under the carpet.

Great we agree here!

>
>One question, though. In alternatives #2-#5, you don't explicitly
>denote how one handles byte values in the 0-31 value range. Care
>to add some comments about that? That way we'd have a fully specified
>value range to consider. (This may be a silly question, but as you
>note, silly questions are allowed... ;-)

I agree we need to include the specification of 0-31 (and 127).

My SYNTHESIS proposal specifies that no codes in 0-31 and 127 SHALL be
used, unless the DESCRIPTION clause specifies that such codes can be used.
Only the prtGeneralCurrentOperator, prtGeneralSystemOperator, and
David's updated prtChannelInformation objects specify that any code
in 0-31 and 127 can be used. They specify that LF (decimal 10) can be used.
So for all other OCTET STRING objects, nothing in 0-31 and 127 SHALL be
used.

>
> ...jay
>
>----- Begin Included Message -----
>
>>From pmp-owner@pwg.org Thu Jul 24 13:54 EDT 1997
>Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:50:27 PDT
>To: lpyoung@lexmark.com
>From: Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
>Subject: Re: PMP> Localization conclusion - prtGeneralPrinterName
>Cc: pmp@pwg.org
>
>I disagree.
>
>We are getting close to an agreement on removing the ambiguity
>of the char set (while NOT attempting to solve the much harder
>problem of localization that includes language and country).
>
>We have five alternatives proposed:
>
>1. Leave the document as it is and leave "ASCII" as ambiguous.
>
>2. Leave the document as it is, but at least add a reference that "ASCII"
> means US-ASCII in 32-126 and that 128 to 255 SHALL NOT be used and
> add a proper reference.
>
>3. Allow any graphic characters in 128 to 255, but 32-126 SHALL be US-ASCII
> but provide no way for an application to determine which character set
> 128 to 255 is representing. (My Tuesday proposal).
>
>4. Allow any graphic characters in 128 to 255, but 32-126 SHALL be US-ASCII
> AND provide a new object to say what that code set is being used in 128
> to 255. (My Wednesday SYNTHESIS proposal).
>
>5. Allow only UTF-8 (which is US-ASCII in 32-126) and multi-byte character
> encoding scheme in 128 to 255 that represent the ISO 10646 coded
> character set. (David Kellerman's proposal).
>
>If we can't take the time to evaluate these proposal with pros and cons
>TODAY and make a choice, we aren't doing our job as a technical committee.
>
>I'll attempt a list or pros and cons of each. I believe that there are
>still a lot of people who do not even understand the 5 alternatives
>and how they impact current and future products. In order to make
>an informed decision, we need to understand them.
>
>Any one who has a question about any of the aleternative, please do NOT
>hesitate to ask. There are no silly questions about this. I've worked
>in coded character sets for twenty years (in cluding being chairman
>of the US-ASCII committee and working on ISO 8859 and ISO 10646), but
>most of us are still learning.
>
>One reading of RFC 2130 does not make you a coding set expert, even though
>that RFC is a very well-written and technically sound document. Witness
>Michael Kirkham mis-uderstandings of UTF-8 vs ASCII after reading RFC 2130
>and David Kellerman's good response to him of what UTF-8 is.
>
>Tom
>
>At 08:15 07/24/97 PDT, lpyoung@lexmark.com wrote:
>>
>>Chris and I are bringing the localization discussion to
>>conclusion. There have been some side proposals that have
>>come up from time to time, I wanted to separate these out
>>to see if we have consensus on these proposed changes. One
>>of the side proposals was to change the syntax of the
>>prtGeneralPrinterName from DisplayString to OCTET STRING.
>>If we want to make this change, I would propose the size
>>be (0 to 63). I have checked with our networking people
>>and this size covers all operating systems that we are
>>aware of.
>>
>>I know most of us are tried of reading about localization
>>and answering questions about localization. The only
>>answer I want back from this note is "I agree" or
>>"I disagree". Please leave the subject line as stated so
>>I can easily count the votes.
>>Thanks,
>>Lloyd
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
>>Senior Program Manager Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
>>Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW
>>internet: lpyoung@lexmark.com Lexington, KY 40550
>>Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>----- End Included Message -----
>
>
>