[IPP] Lexmark has reviewed the IPP Transaction-Based Printing Extensions specification and has one comment

[IPP] Lexmark has reviewed the IPP Transaction-Based Printing Extensions specification and has one comment

[IPP] Lexmark has reviewed the IPP Transaction-Based Printing Extensions specification and has one comment

Michael Sweet msweet at apple.com
Mon Sep 16 18:20:13 UTC 2013


Barry,

Thanks for your feedback.  Response below.

On Sep 13, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Barry Cavill <bcavill at lexmark.com> wrote:
> "The actual methods of measurement and limit enforcement" are considered out-of-scope for the specification, which is fine.   However, perhaps there should be a job-state-reason to indicate that the user's job is rejected for a measurement other than limit enforcement... for example, the user isn't authorized for color printing, or for printing on photo paper, or some similar scenario.   

In general, such things would be detected when the job is submitted, however since we *do* define "job-state-reasons" keywords for many of the client-error-xxx status codes, how about the following additions?

    Status Code                                      "job-state-reasons" Keyword
    -----------------------------------------------  ----------------------------------
    client-error-attributes-or-values-not-supported  'unsupported-attributes-or-values'
    client-error-conflicting-attributes              'conflicting-attributes'

Unfortunately, we don't have a place to store the actual unsupported attributes and values after the response, but at least the client would know there was a problem and the "job-state-message" attribute could provide a localized reason with specifics...

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20130916/ba12ccca/attachment.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list