On the other hand, if we stick by our tentative decision at Wednesday's 11/4
telecon on decision #1 (nlo 3 of 4 = Issue 1.47) to get rid of job-level NLO
on Get-Jobs response, then the issue of returning multiple copies becomes
moot, since there will be no job-level "attributes-natural-language" being
returned when not requested.
>From: Carl Kugler [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 07:57
>Subject: Re: RE: IPP> MOD - NLO 2 of 4: Clarification that Nat
>> And if we allow redundant job-level NLO, what if the client
>> A current implementation that we are testing the scripts
>> "attributes-natural-language" twice
>> with the same value (which our scripts reject).
>> Issue 1.52 is asking
>> whether returning two "attributes-natural-language" is
>conforming or not.
>> If we agree it is, we will change our scripts.
>MOD 3.2.6 "Get-Jobs Operation" says
> "This operation is similar to the Get-Job-Attributes
>operation, except that this Get-Jobs operation returns
>attributes from possibly more than one object...",
>and MOD 3.3.4 "Get-Job-Attributes Operation" says
> "Since a client MAY request specific attributes or named
>groups, there is a potential that there is some overlap. For
>example, if a client requests, 'job-name' and
>'job-description', the client is actually requesting the
>"job-name" attribute once by naming it explicitly, and once by
>inclusion in the 'job-description' group. In such cases, the
>Printer object NEED NOT return the attribute only once in the
>response even if it is requested multiple times. The client
>SHOULD NOT request the same attribute in multiple ways."
>So I think returning two "attributes-natural-language" is conforming.
>See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=4760
>Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/