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

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

Re: PMP> Localization conclusion - prtGeneralPrinterName

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:54:28 -0400

And... we're expecting devices to store this 128 octet string in NVRAM???

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

-------- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 07/24/97 02:52 PM -------

pmp-owner@pwg.org
07/24/97 02:22 PM
Please respond to pmp-owner@pwg.org @ internet

To: pmp@pwg.org @ internet
cc:
Subject: Re: PMP> Localization conclusion - prtGeneralPrinterName

I agree to changing prtGeneralPrinterName from DisplayString
to OCTET STRING.

However, I also agree with Chuck that if we ultimately expect
multi-byte character codes in this object, then the max size
should be doubled (at least).

...jay

----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:07:27 -0700
From: Chuck Adams <adamsc@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc.
To: lpyoung@lexmark.COM
Cc: pmp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PMP> Localization conclusion - prtGeneralPrinterName
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

Please increase this size to (0 to 126). If
is really and OCTET STRING and I use UNICODE
I need 16 bits per character.

If this change is made I vote Yes.

Chuck Adams

----- End Included Message -----