All of the other mappings for IPP to JMP have the same attribute syntax
with the exception of the "sides" attribute and the "job-state-reasons"
attribute. We have a note for the "job-state-reasons" attribute
explaining that IPP uses keywords and JMP uses bits. We should have the
same kind of a note for "sides".
In IPP the data type for "sides" is 'keyword' which is a us-ascii string.
In JMP it is an 'integer' (not an enum). So I feel strongly that a note
needs to be included to indicate this difference in syntax.
If the issue is the size or complexity of the note, I offer the following
alternative notes from simplest to more complex/detailed for Note 2:
a. Simplest:
2. In JMP the sides attribute has the ingeter values '1' and '2' and
three keyword values in IPP.
b. More detailed:
2. In JMP the sides attribute has the integer value '1' or '2'. In IPP,
the "sides" attribute has the three keyword values: 'one-sided',
'two-sided-long-edge', and 'two-sided-short-edge'.
Tom
At 09:01 11/10/1997 PST, Ron Bergman wrote:
>I have update the Job Mib Mapping document with the changes agreed in
>the Boulder meeting. I have also included the changes recommended in
>Tom Hastings memo of 24 Oct 1997, with the following exception:
>> Tom recommended a note for the mapping of *sides* in IPP to
> indicate that 3 IPP enum values need to be mapped to 2 JMP integer
> values. IPP sides definition allows 3 values:
>> 1) one-sided
> 2) two-sided-long-edge
> 3) two-sided-short-edge
>> The JMP sides definition has two values: 1 (side) or 2 (sides).
>> I do not feel that the recommended note is necessary. If anyone
> responds to this message that this mapping would be unclear without
> this note, I will add.
>>The documents can be retrieved on the PWG FTP site as:
>> ftp::/ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/specs/JMPMAP01.DOC (no revision marks)
> ftp::/ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/specs/JMPMAP01-REV.DOC (w/ revision marks)
> ftp::/ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/jmp/specs/JMPMAP01.TXT
>>Open issues:
>> 1) Mapping information needs to be generated for IPDS. (There were
> several IBM representatives at the meeting in Boulder, and the
> consensus was IPDS should be included in the document.)
> ACTION: Harry Lewis will provide this information.
>> 2) Mapping information needs to be generated for DPA or Print Exchange.
> ACTION: Tom Hastings will provide.
>> 3) The NDPS mapping needs to be reviewed. Scott Isaacson provided a
> list of the JMP objects and attributes supported, but no information
> was provided as to the identification of the corresponding NDPS
> parameters.
> ACTION: Scott - Can this data be provided?
>> 4) The PJL mapping needs to be reviewed.
> ACTION: Bob Pentecost, can you do a quick review?
>> 5) I have added a mapping for PostScript. This needs to be reviewed.
>> 6) A new jmJobSubmissionId format is required for PostScript. This is
> an agent generated format which uses the document name.
>> 7) The mapping for PServer needs to be reviewed. There are three JMP
> attributes that do not a corresponding PServer parameter identified.
> ACTION: Scott - Can you review this section?
>> 8) A new jmJobSubmissionId format is required for PServer. This is
> an agent generated format which uses the directory path name.
>> 9) SMB mapping is needed.
> ACTION: Ron Bergman will provide.
>> 10) TIP/SI mapping is needed. I will do a draft of the maaping and
> send the result to the mailing list for review.
>> 11) The issue was raised in Boulder as to how jmJobSubmissionId is to
> be mapped if there are multiple *submission protocols* used in the
> transmission of the job, all which can generate a valid
> jmJobSubmissionId. I will send an email to get the discussion
> started on this subject.
>>I would like to get as many of these issues resolved prior to the L.A.
>meeting. Please try to get as many of these action items resolved by
>November 21st.
>>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>>>>>