IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

Manros, Carl-Uno B cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu Mar 30 17:05:44 EST 2000


I agree with Michael that we ought to use SHOULD instead of MUST if we 
want this to be an editorial change; using MUST seems to require a new
WG Last Call.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike at easysw.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 8:07 AM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'harryl at us.ibm.com'; Hastings, Tom N; anthony.porter at computer.org;
ipp at pwg.org; venky at teil.soft.net
Subject: Re: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

"McDonald, Ira" wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I agree with Harry that we should further revise this paragraph
> to indicate that a client MUST specify a particular document
> format when known and MUST NOT use 'application/octet-stream'
> instead.

Um, that probably won't work too well, since many printer-specific
data streams do not have registered MIME types (e.g. Canon, ALPS,
EPSON, Lexmark, etc.), and a generic print server (e.g. JetDirect,
Axis print server, etc.) probably won't know enough to be able to
enumerate the supported MIME types for the actual device.

SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are probably more appropriate if we are
trying to "encourage" rather than "enforce".

Also, the application/octet-stream information should probably be
updated to reflect a special case for printer objects that list
only application/octet-stream for document-format-supported.
That is, if a client knows the MIME type but the printer object
only supports application/octet-stream, then the printer object
is just acting as a "dumb" printer buffer and the client must
only use the default document format or pass

Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike at easysw.com
Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com

More information about the Ipp mailing list