Hi Bill,
Perhaps Tom was looking at some other source?
But the confusion was definitely resolved yesterday to keep
"delay-output" in the names - because "delay" alone is too
ambiguous (i.e., appears to be a "hold" synonym).
In addition we removed the "job-delay-output-xxx" entirely
from the Hold-Job operation - they can only be set using
the Set-Job-Attributes operation.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> All,
>>>> Sorry I missed yesterday’s call, but I was traveling.
>>>> I wonder at Tom’s comment since they MFD Overall document
> (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdoverallmod10-20100329.pdf)
> definitely uses the terms JobDelayOutputUntil and JobDelayOutputUntilTime
> and has from the time that these terms were introduced in January. Perhaps
> there is some other document he is referring too?
>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>> From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler at xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:17 AM
> To: tom.hastings at alum.mit.edu> Cc: ipp at pwg.org; wamwagner at comcast.net> Subject: RE: ISSUE: Should JPS2 shorten "job-delay-output-until[-time]" to
> just "job-delay-until[-time]" to align with MFD (and PWG Semantic Model)?
>>>> Tom,
>> The PWG Semantic Model schema uses JobDelayOutputUntil and
> JobDelayOutputUntilTime which aligns with the JSP2 specification. (schema
> elements dropped the ‘-‘ and uppercased the following letter) I prefer to
> have the schema track JPS2 and I think the JPS2 attribute name is more
> descriptive. The MFD specification will synch up with JPS2 when it is in
> final form.
>> Pete
>>>>>> Peter Zehler
>> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com> Voice: (585) 265-8755
> FAX: (585) 265-7441
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 128-25E
> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>>>> From: Tom Hastings [mailto:tom.hastings at verizon.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 2:13 AM
> To: Zehler, Peter
> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Subject: ISSUE: Should JPS2 shorten "job-delay-output-until[-time]" to just
> "job-delay-until[-time]" to align with MFD (and PWG Semantic Model)?
>>>> Peter,
>>>> ISSUE: Should we remove the "-output" from the name to align the names more
> with the MFD spec (and PWG Semantic Mode)?
>>>> In other words:
>> "job-delay-until"
>> instead of :
>> "job-delay-output-until"
>>>> and:
>>>> ISSUE: Should we remove the "-output" from the name to align the names more
> with the MFD spec (and PWG Semantic Mode)?
>>>> In other words:
>> "job-delay-until-time"
>> instead of :
>> "job-delay-output-until-time"
>>>> Tom
>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.