Hi Tom,
Your mail headers were wrong - your original copy to IPP list
went to the Illinois Prairie Path (no doubt a deserving
organization, but not a protocol standards body...)
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 3:44 PM
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; sm@pwg.org
Cc: ipp@ipp.org
Subject: RE: SM> Adding 4 more member attributes to
"document-format-detai l" (coll ection) attribute
Hi Tom,
There's some confusion in your proposal below.
The current "document-format-detail" member attribute "platform"
and the proposed additional member attribute "platform-version"
(or "os-version") are likely to be redundant.
The only standardized source of values for all these attributes
is the IANA registry of operating system names - it contains BOTH
OS and version as a single string (e.g., "WINDOWS-95") and
generally does NOT contain the simple name (e.g., there is no
registered "WINDOWS" operating system). See:
ftp://ftp.iana.org/assignments/operating-system-names
In the IPP Driver Installation spec we have a single attribute
"os-type" (with the values normalized to lowercase for IPP). See:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-install-04.txt
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:06 PM
To: sm@pwg.org
Cc: ipp@ipp.org
Subject: SM> Adding 4 more member attributes to "document-format-detail"
(coll ection) attribute
PWG Semantic Model folks (and IPP WG folks),
This is a similar mail message that I've send to the CIP4 JDF Capabilities
WG.
The IPP Document object spec has a "document-format-detail" (collection)
attribute which contains member attributes that give more information about
a document, such as "document-format-version",
"document-format-natural-language", "platform", "device-id", and a recursive
"document-format-details" (collection) to describe the unique Parts of an
application/zip or multipart/related file. See:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/pwg-ipp-document-object-latest.pdf
The IPP "document-format-details" (collection) attribute is much like the
FileSpec resource in JDF. So I've downloaded a comparison of the IPP
document format attributes including the proposed "document-format-detail"
(collection) attribute and the JDF/1.1 FileSpec resource. See:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/Comparison of JDF and IPP
document-format-attrs.pdf (213K)
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/Comparison of JDF and IPP
document-format-attrs.doc (264K)
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/Comparison of JDF and IPP
document-format-attrs.zip (33K)
This downloaded document proposes adding 3 more attributes to JDF FileSpec
resource:
MimeTypeVersion, IEEE1284DeviceId, and DocumentParts.
and 4 more member attributes to the proposed IPP "document-format-details
(collection)::
"application", "application-version", "platform-version" (or "os-version"),
"user-file-name"
in order to align both of them and to take the features of one and make them
available in the other.
I'll be glad to write up the new JDF FileSpec attributes (if the CIP4
Capabilities WG likes the proposed semantics) and update the IPP Document
object spec (if the PWG Semantic Model WG likes the proposed semantics).
Comments?
Thanks,
Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 16:53:22 EST