IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-

RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Mon Apr 03 2000 - 19:10:15 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification"

    Hi Tom and Michael,

    Right. All 'sniffer' algorithms have known bugs and limitations.
    We shouldn't be encouraging client implementors (or end users)
    to punt and just specify 'application/octet-stream' when they
    know better.

    I also agree with Tom that we should get moving on registering
    the PDLs in common use in the printer industry that are not
    currently MIME registered. Volunteers to do this work?

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 3:59 PM
    To: Michael Sweet; McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'harryl@us.ibm.com'; anthony.porter@computer.org; ipp@pwg.org;
    venky@teil.soft.net
    Subject: RE: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

    We've talked a lot about registering all of the PDLs that are in the Printer
    MIB that don't already have a MIME type. Maybe we need to push that
    approach. The problem with a client specifying 'application/octet-stream'
    when it knows better, is that the Printer may have trouble distinguishing
    between some of its supported formats.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike@easysw.com]
    Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 08:07
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'harryl@us.ibm.com'; Hastings, Tom N; anthony.porter@computer.org;
    ipp@pwg.org; venky@teil.soft.net
    Subject: Re: IPP> Document-format attribute.. [ipp-mod] clarification

    "McDonald, Ira" wrote:
    >
    > Hi folks,
    >
    > I agree with Harry that we should further revise this paragraph
    > to indicate that a client MUST specify a particular document
    > format when known and MUST NOT use 'application/octet-stream'
    > instead.

    Um, that probably won't work too well, since many printer-specific
    data streams do not have registered MIME types (e.g. Canon, ALPS,
    EPSON, Lexmark, etc.), and a generic print server (e.g. JetDirect,
    Axis print server, etc.) probably won't know enough to be able to
    enumerate the supported MIME types for the actual device.

    SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are probably more appropriate if we are
    trying to "encourage" rather than "enforce".

    Also, the application/octet-stream information should probably be
    updated to reflect a special case for printer objects that list
    only application/octet-stream for document-format-supported.
    That is, if a client knows the MIME type but the printer object
    only supports application/octet-stream, then the printer object
    is just acting as a "dumb" printer buffer and the client must
    only use the default document format or pass
    application/octet-stream.

    -- 
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 03 2000 - 19:17:29 EDT