The IPP WG decided in November, and reflected in the November Model and
Semantics, that the semantics in the b and d scripts are what is part of the
IPP/1.0 specification.
So only scripts b and d will be tested at the Bake Off in March.
So just delete the a and e scripts.
Thanks,
Tom
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zehler, Peter
>Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 04:38
>To: Hastings, Tom N
>Subject: FW: Xerox NLO test scripts
>
>
>Tom,
>How should I respond to this? Perhaps a clarification to the
>IPP DL is appropriate.
>Pete
> Peter Zehler
> XEROX
> Networked Products Business Unit
> Email: Peter.Zehler@usa.xerox.com
> Voice: (716) 265-8755
> FAX: (716) 265-8792
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 111-02J
> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Suzuki, Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie_Suzuki@cissc.canon.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 4:39 PM
>To: 'Zehler, Peter'
>Subject: Xerox NLO test scripts
>
>
>Hi,
>
>There are 4 NLO test scripts that Xerox redistributed. Here are the
>comments within them:
>
> @ NLO3of4a.test - a is 1 of 2 Get-Jobs tests -
>job NLO MUST
>be returned
> @ The 2 tests are intended to help decide which
>semantics to
>agree on.
> @ Test a: Job-level Natural Language (NL)
>Override (NLO) of
>Get-Jobs operation
> @ according to the June draft which MUST be
>present if job
>is different
> @ from the natural language being returned in
>the Get-Jobs
>response.
> @ Includes the clarification that a redundant
>job-level NLO
>is ok for Get-Jobs.
>
> # a is 1 of 2 test - tests for the June
>specification, i.e.,
>that the
> # job-level natural language override MUST be
>returned, if
>the job level
> # NL is different from the job attribute NL.
>
> # b is 2 of 2 test - tests proposed
>simplification, i.e.,
>the job-level
> # natural language override MUST NOT be returned.
>
> @ NLO4of4d.test - d is 1 of 2 Get-Job-Attributes tests -
>June draft attr NLO
> @ The 2 tests are intended to help decide which
>semantics to
>agree on.
> @ Test d: Attribute-level Natural Language (NL) Override
>(NLO)
> @ according to the June draft which MUST be
>present if the
>attribute NL is
> @ different from the NL being returned in the
>"attributes-natural-language"
> @ operation attribute response.
> @ Includes the clarification that a redundant
>attribute-level NLO is ok for
> @ any response.
>
> # d is 1 of 2 tests: tests Get-Job-Attributes operation
>according to the
> # June draft, including clarification that redundant
>attribute NLO is ok.
>
> # e is 2 of 2 tests: tests proposed
>simplification to get
>rid of
> # nameWithoutLanguage and to always use explicit natural
>language.
>
> # If we can't agree on either, we might agree on the
>fallback:
> # that senders SHOULD send WithLanguage forms only, but
>receivers MUST accept
> # both. Therefore, if we agree to the
>fallback, IPP Printer
>objects MUST still
> # pass the d tests.
>
>Which of these tests will be used at the bake-off?
>
>Thank you,
>Stephanie Suzuki
>