Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> Semantic Model Teleconferen

Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> Semantic Model Teleconferen

SM> Semantic Model Teleconference/Last Call

From: Zehler, Peter (PZehler@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 11:44:25 EDT

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "SM> Semantic Model Teleconference info (10/02)"

    All,

    There will be no SM teleconference today. The next scheduled teleconference
    is October 2nd. The JobX, Overrides and Document Object specifications are
    in Last call. Please send any comments and/or issues to mailto:ipp@pwg.org
    <mailto:ipp@pwg.org> and I will collect them for review next week and at
    the Face-to-Face. I will send out the teleconference information later this
    week.

    At this time we have 4 editorial comments on JobX, 16 editorial comments and
    3 issues with Document Object and nothing on Overrides. (Thanks Jerry)
    Please take a look at the documents so we can complete Last Call on these
    and move on to finalizing the Semantic Model and Schema. I've included
    Jerry's comments and issues below.

    Thanks,
    Pete

                                    Peter Zehler
                                    XEROX
                                    Xerox Innovation Group
                                    Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
                                    Voice: (585) 265-8755
                                    FAX: (585) 422-7961
                                    US Mail: Peter Zehler
                                            Xerox Corp.
                                            800 Phillips Rd.
                                            M/S 128-25E
                                            Webster NY, 14580-9701

    Document Object
    (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/wd-ippdoc10-20030908.pdf
    <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/wd-ippdoc10-20030908.pdf> )
    Editorial Comments:
    1) Cover Page Line 26:
    The sentence about listing "all" of the attributes defined in other IPP
    specifications is probably not going to be accurate for very long.....if
    now..

    2) Page 9, line 311:
    The sentence should read.... "The semantics of the
    "document-state..."...(missing "the").

    3) Page 9, line 317-320:
    This paragraph needs to be reworded to state what the spec. is, not what
    it's proposed to be.

    4) Page 13, line 403:
    The Job operatations that MUST NOT have any ..... (remove the word "that" )

    5) Page 14, line 413:
    The semantic of Fidelity on a Job are intended..... (The "semantics" of
    Fidelity....)

    6) Page 15, line 446,447,451
    The sentence "For example, such Job Template attributes as
    "job-priority"...." sounds odd.. (should read "For example, Job Template
    attributes such as .....) Same comment for line 447 and 451 "Printer MUST
    NOT copy down any..." (should be "Printer MUST NOT copy any Job Level
    attributes ...")

    7) Page 21, line 653:
    ..it is only an empty job which is.... (recommend: "it is an empty job that
    is scheduled and...)

    8) Page 24, line 777:
    ..Document object was submitted...(should be: ...Document object is
    submitted...)

    9) Page 24, line 781:
    ..The only differences are that the Set-Job-Attibutes operation is...
    (should be: ..The only difference is that the ...operation is...)

    10) Page 26, line 831,832:
    Formatting problem (unnecessary indentation....)

    11) Page 26, line 833:
    First sentence worded funny. (suggest: Most Document Description attributes
    (see...)are NOT settable, i.e., they are defined to be READ-ONLY.)

    12) Page 45, line 1258:
    First character space on that line is inadvertently highlighted...

    13) Page 48, line 1305, 1309; Page 51, line 1389;
    Remove the names of the attribute at the beginning of the description. It's
    both unnecessary and inconsistent with the other attribute descriptions.
    (There are other descriptive paragraphs with the same problem..Page 58,59

    14) Page 57, line 1571:
    First printed character (') is highlighted for no reason.

    15) Page 65,66,67
    Remove highlighted areas...
    lines 1776-1778, 1785-1787, 1795-1797, 1830, 1844-1846, 1847-1849. Page 66,
    line1828 (PrintBasic: 1.0) is in red....

    15) Page 75, line 2221,2224
    Broken reference links.....

    Issues:
    16) Page 14, line 430-431:
    After a strong conformance statement on the client, the printer is required
    to accept a non-conformant client operation..... (should be an error if the
    client supplies this attribute in a Doc Creation operation.. and the Printer
    should be allowed to flag it..)

    17) Page 26, line 837-839:
    The note that provides guidance for future extensions doesn't belong in a
    specification, it belongs in the requirements doc of the future
    extension.....it'll get lost in this spec.... (suggest removing the note)

    18) Page 28 Cancel-Document operation (and line 922)
    Question/Comment: What happens to the document DATA when a document is
    cancelled (assuming it's already been sent to the Printer)?
    Line 922 should read ....which only cancels the processing of the document,
    and doesn't delete the document object itself.....
    But it still says nothing about the document DATA. If the DATA is kept after
    a Cancel Document then there may be a security issue for the overly security
    conscious since this is the only way a client can request a document NOT be
    processed (then the data hangs around in the print spool for some unknown
    time). (Cancel Doc is mandatory for Printer, Delete Doc is optional)
    If the Data is not kept, what is the mechanism for the reprocess job
    operation if the data is expected to be there?

    JobX (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_JOBX/wd-ippjobx10-20030908.pdf
    <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_JOBX/wd-ippjobx10-20030908.pdf> )
    Editorial Comments:
    19) Page 13, footnote 5
    Operation is partially italicized....(shouldn't be)

    20) Page 34, line 1051
    Need a little more informative test explaining what these are in addition
    too.....

    21) Page 37, line 1162
    the word "PrintBasic:1.0" is in red....

    22) See page 16 Lines 497 - 500 of the Sept. 8 Draft....
    Action Item: (Tom and Ira): Propose a format for the file......
    Did this get resolved and/or just missed in the final edits?

    Overrides
    (ftp://www.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_EXC/wd-ippOverride10-20030910.pdf
    <ftp://www.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_EXC/wd-ippOverride10-20030910.pdf> )
    No comments



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 11:45:43 EDT