You said that you are neutral on the subject of a type byte. Does
that mean that if we have no type byte that you are willing to
have all values be represented by text? Currently, some of your
attributes are text and others are binary. That is a problem if
there is no type byte.
It seems to me that having no type byte and having all values be represented
by text is the simplest solution.
Bob Herriot
> From paulmo at microsoft.com Sun Jun 8 17:28:15 1997
>>> Type byte:
> This was suggested to me already. I am neutral on the subject. I did not
> make the change becuase it was not discussed in San Diego. There are a
> few question I have on it which I would like to see discussed before
> finalising.
>> >
> > Section 8. You define several different representations for attribute
> > values: text, binary integers, binary boolean, binary keywords. But
> > you don't include a field for value's type. This makes is hard for
> > a client to know how to interpret and unknown attribute. I think
> > the right solution is to keep the IPP solution where all values are
> > text. Alternatively, we could all agree to add a one byte type field
> > just before the value's length field.
> >