The semantics are more important to me than the name. If the
group prefers "best-effort" to "may-ignore-attributes", that's
OK with me.
But what do you mean by "where applicable" below. I had in
mind that "best-effort" would be a parameter and nothing else.
It is behavior that occurs during receipt of a printer and
has no existence past that point.
> From jkm at underscore.com Mon Jul 21 15:51:00 1997
>> Sorry, but what I meant to say was that there was no obviously
> good reason to rename "best-effort" to "may-ignore-attributes".
> (I guess you've since withdrawn such renaming...thanks.)
>> I do, however, like moving "best-effort" to a parameter where
>> ----- Begin Included Message -----
>> From Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM Mon Jul 21 17:03 EDT 1997
> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:03:35 -0700
> From: Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Herriot)
> To: ipp at pwg.org, jkm at underscore.com, rdebry at us.ibm.com> Subject: Re: IPP>MOD - best effort
>> There is plenty wrong with best-effort. Perhaps you didn't read the
> fine print in the current model document. It is currently
> defined as a job template attribute which means:
>> o there is a job attribute "best-effort" for specifying what the
> client wants.
> o there is a printer default "best-effort" which says whether
> the printer defaults it behavior to best-effort or not if a
> client doesn't specify this attribute.
> o there is a printer "best-effort-supported" attribute which is unlike
> most xxx-supported attributes. It is not a set of possible
> values, namely "true" and "false" values. Instead, it is either
> "true" or "false"
> * "true" means that a client can specify either the value
> "true" or "false" or and the printer default "best-effort"
> can have the value of true or false"
> * "false" means that a client can specify only the value of
> "false" and the default "best-effort" can have only the
> value of "false".
> NOTE: it is believed that no implementation would support
> a "best-effort" job attribute of "true" only.
> o this attribute has to be processed before others are processed
> because it affects the processing of them, but it need not
> be the first attribute.
> o the "best-effort" substitution is somewhat undefined and
> potentially complex.
>> Compare the above with what I proposed:
>>> o I replace 3 job-template attributes by a single parameter
> "may-ignored-attributes" which is either true, false or omitted
> (false is default). All printers support both values because
> it is easier to support "best-effort" as "ignore the attribute".
>> o I make it easy to process the "may-ignore-attributes" value before
> any attributes are processed because the information is
> in the parameter section which precedes any attributes.
>> Now I suggest that we forget about "may-ignore-attributes" job
> attribute, that I proposed. It really isn't necessary and deflects
> from the discussion. The single parameter is sufficient.
>> Do you still believe that the "3 job-template attributes" proposal is
> simpler than the "single parameter" proposal?
>> Bob Herriot
>> > From jkm at underscore.com Mon Jul 21 07:58:51 1997
> > I completely agree with Roger. I just don't see the added value
> > here...but I certainly see the additional complexity and resulting
> > confusion.
> > There is nothing wrong (semantically) with "best-effort". Let's
> > leave it alone, but make the obvious clarifications in the Model
> > document with regard to Job templates, etc.
> > ...jay
> > ----- Begin Included Message -----
> > From ipp-owner at pwg.org Mon Jul 21 10:01 EDT 1997
> > From: Roger K Debry <rdebry at us.ibm.com>
> > To: <Ipp at pwg.org>
> > Subject: IPP>MOD - best effort
> > Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:54:56 -0400
> > >There should be an OPTIONAL job attribute may-ignore-attributes which
> > >is set by the parameter may- ignore-attributes. This attribute is
> > >MANDATORY if Create-Job is supported because Send-Document and Send-URI
> > >use the value set by Create-Job. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect it to be
> > >implemented. It would be useful in a future resubmit-job operation
> > Now let me see, if I understand .... we don't like the concept of
> > best-effort as an attribute, so we rename it, make it a parameter, then
> > add an optional job attribute with the same name, and then have the
> > parameter set the attribute, except sometimes the attribute (or is it
> > the parameter) is mandatory. Did I get it right??????
> > Excuse me, but I think we just added a ton of confusion and didn't change
> > things one bit!
> > ----- End Included Message -----
>>> ----- End Included Message -----