Fine.
I'll leave these changes out and we will discuss issues 111 and 112
at the Seattle meeting in August.
Tom
At 13:19 07/29/97 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:
>Tom,
>>I recommend that these changes NOT be incorporated into a document
>that is posted as an Internet-Draft until the group can do a
>through review. I still do not understand the impact of UTF-8
>and from the recent email on the PWG issue, I am not alone.
>>To expect responses in such a short time is unreasonable. I am
>sure that the update you are working on will not be the final
>document for Proposed Standard. We should have plenty of time
>to properly resolve this issue.
>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>>>>On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Tom Hastings wrote:
>>> In order to avoid a flood of mail, I talked with Harry on simple
>> solutions to the code set identification problem (Issues 111 and 112).
>>>> We agreed on the following simple solutions which should satisy
>> David Perkin's comment and the Area Directors warning not to leave
>> the coded character set ambiguous to applications.
>>>> I'm going to edit the following into the draft this afternoon
>> in order to meet tommorrows deadline for the next Internet-Draft,
>> unless I hear problems.
>>>> Tom
>>>> ISSUE 111 (restated): How does an application determine the coded character
>> set for the objects and attributes that the agent generates (that cannot
come
>> from the job submitter)?
>>>> The following 3 objects and attributes are in question:
>>>> jmGeneralJobSetName object
>> processingMessage attribute
>> physicalDevice (name value) attribute
>>>> Suggested solution: Use UTF-8 only for these 3 objects/attributes.
>>>>>>>> ISSUE 112 (re-stated): How does a management application determine the
>> coded character set for the per-job objects and attributes that are returned
>> by the agent (whether submitted by the job submitter or defaulted by the
>> agent when the job submitter does not supply).
>>>> The following 19 per-job objects and attributes are in question:
>>>> IETF Job object/attributes Equivalent IPP attributes
>> -------------------------- -------------------------
>> jmJobOwner object "job-originating-user"
>> other, -
>> unknown, -
>> serverAssignedJobName, -
>> jobName, "job-name"
>> jobAccountName, -
>> submittingServerName, -
>> submittingApplicationName, -
>> jobOriginatingHost, "job-originating-host"
>> deviceNameRequested, "printer-uri"
>> queueNameRequested, -
>> fileName, "document-uri"
>> documentName, "document-name"
>> jobComment, -
>> outputBin (name), -
>> mediumRequested (name), "media"
>> mediumConsumed (name), -
>> colorantRequested (name), -
>> colorantConsumed (name) -
>>>>>> Suggested solution:
>>>> Add a jobCodedCharSet job attribute that identifies the IANA character set
>> that the agent is using to represent the job objects and attributes whether
>> supplied by the job submitter or defaulted by the server/device when the job
>> submitter does not supply. If the agent doesn't know what the coded
>> character set that the job submitter used, the agent SHALL either (1) omit
>> the jobCodedCharSet attribute or (2) return the value 'unknown(2)' as the
>> value of the jobCodedCharSet attribute.
>>>>>>>>>