IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> 6 agreements from the IPP Documen

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> 6 agreements from the IPP Documen

Re: IPP> 6 agreements from the IPP Document Object Spec review, April 24, 2003

From: Dennis Carney (dcarney@us.ibm.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 09:26:36 EDT

  • Next message: Carl: "RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?"

    My comments below, marked with <dmc></dmc>. (The comments are only on
    items 3, 5, and 6.)

    Dennis Carney
    IBM Printing Systems

                                                                                                                                                       
                          "Hastings, Tom N"
                          <hastings@cp10.es To: ipp@pwg.org
                          .xerox.com> cc:
                          Sent by: Subject: IPP> 6 agreements from the IPP Document Object Spec review, April 24, 2003
                          owner-ipp@pwg.org
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                       
                          04/25/03 05:49 PM
                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                       

    Attendees: Gail, Bob, Pete, Lee, Dave, Jerry T, Tom (did I miss anyone?)

    We'll have one more page by page review next Thursday, May 1. PETER: OK?
    Or do you want to look at the updated document (which isn't quite done)?

    We reached the following agreements:

    1. Add "document-format-version-detected" Job Description attribute to go
    with "document-format-detected" and "document-format-details-detected" Job
    Description attributes.

    2. Remove the feature that "job-mandatory-attributes" can supply the
    keyword
    names for the 7 document Operation/Description attributes ("compression",
    "document-charset", "document-digital-signature", "document-details",
    "document-format", "document-format-version", and
    "document-natural-language"). So none of these 7 document
    Operation/Description attributes can be validated with Create-Job, because
    none of them can be submitted with Create-Job. These 7 MUST be submitted
    with Document Creation operations when they are supplied. All of these 7
    document Operation/Description attributed can be supplied in a
    Validate-Job.
    However, the Printer will only reject Validate-Job for the two that
    [rfc2911] REQUIRES: "document-format" and "compression". For the other 5
    if
    unsupported attributes or values are supplied, the Printer MUST return them
    in the Unsupported Attributes response with a
    'successful-ok-ignored-or-substituted-attributes' status code.

    3. The comment that we need a way for a Printer to say it will accept any
    value for a particular attribute was discussed, including adding a general
    'any'. The problem with adding 'any' as a value of the "xxx-supported"
    Printer attributes is that the Printer validation now needs a special case
    check when comparing "xxx" attributes supplied by the client with
    "xxx-supported Printer attribute. Also clients have to know that they
    can't
    display 'any' as a value and have to know that they can't send 'any' in the
    request, even though the value is one of the values of the Printer's
    "xxx-supported" attribute.

    So we agreed that the way already defined in [pwg5100.3] section 6.1):
    user-defined-values-supported (1setOf type2 keyword) Printer Description
    attribute lists the Job Template (and Document Template) attributes that
    the
    Printer will accept any value. However, with the current definition, it
    doesn't allow the Document Operation/Description attributes to be named.
    So
    there is no way for the Printer to say it will accept any "document-format"
    value. However, the Printer MUST accept any other value of any of the
    other
    7 Document Operation/Description attributes. We also agreed that for the
    SM
    Schema it was preferable to indicate by some additional attribute that the
    Printer would accept any value for an attribute, rather than introducing an
    'any' value.

    ISSUE: So we may still have an issue if there is a need for a Printer to
    accept any document format. One solution would be to extend the
    "user-defined-values-supported" to allow the "document-format" and
    "compression" keyword attribute values.
    <dmc>
    What does it mean for a printer to accept any document-format/compression?
    It will accept formats it has never heard of and attempt to print them
    anyway, presumably without any "formatting" or decompression? Sort of like
    equating any unknown document format to just 'text/plain'?
    </dmc>

    ISSUE: OK to extend "user-defined-values-supported" to include
    'document-format' and 'compression' attribute values?

    ISSUE: If we also allow the "user-defined-values-supported" to include
    'document-format-details' and its member attributes, e.g.,
    'document-format-details.document-source-application-version', then the
    Printer can say that it implements "any" version. Doesn't this solve Bob
    Taylor's truth in advertizing requirement? So a Printer that doesn't want
    to bother clients with returning versions that aren't in its implemented
    list, the Printer can include the
    'document-format-details.document-source-application-version' value is the
    Printer's "user-defined-values-supported".

    4. Add '[job-]errors-detected' value to "job-state-reasons" and
    "document-state-reasons", but do not add "[job-]errors-count" Job/Document
    Description attribute. Knowing the number of errors isn't more helpful, to
    just knowing that one or more errors occurred. Losing data is an error,
    while substituing some other font is only a warning, since no infomration
    was lost.

    5. ISSUE: For a conversion service or a Print Service that converts the
    document format, there isn't a way to indicate the desired final format and
    there isn't a way to represent the current document format for a document
    that is being converted, where the current format might be different from
    either the supplied format or the desired format.
    <dmc>
    Maybe I just have to get my mind reset, but IPP as a conversion or Print
    service? Isn't IPP tailored to *print*? Wouldn't we need (a bunch?) more
    attributes detailing where the job/document was supposed to go when it had
    been "converted"? I'm also wondering whether there would be (a bunch of?)
    attributes/state-reasons that are either meaningless, whose meaning is
    totally different, or whose meaning is unclear/ambiguous in the conversion
    case. Do we *really* want to try to go there?
    </dmc>
    AGREED:

    a. Add the following 2 attributes as Job Template/Document Template
    attributes (but not to the "document-format-details" collection Operation
    attribute):

    "document-format-requested" and "document-format-version-requested" Job
    Template/Document Template attribute, so that there are also
    "document-format-requested-default" and
    "document-format-version-requested-default" Printer attributes and also
    "document-format-requested-supported" and
    "document-format-version-requested-supported" Printer attributes. And
    corresponding "document-format-requested-actual" and
    "document-format-version-requested-actual" Job Description attributes.

    b. Add the following pair to the READ-ONLY Document Description attributes:

    "document-format-current" and "document-format-version-current" Document
    Description attributes. The Printer sets these to the "document-format"
    and
    "document-format-version" supplied by the client and changes them as the
    processing proceeds, eventually winding up with the values supplied in the
    "document-format-requested" and "document-format-version-requested"
    attributes.

    6. Suggestion to move some of the Document object spec to a separate spec.

    Proposals:

    1. Separate operation and attributes into REQUIRED/CONDITIONALLY REQUIRE
    versus OPTIONAL for a Printer to support.

    2. Move out only those things which make sense to implement even when not
    supporting the Document object:

    A. "job-mandatory-attributes" Job Creation Operation attribute
    B. "document-charset" Operation attr, "-default", "-supported"
    C. "document-digital-signature" Operation attr, "-default", "-supported"
    D. "document-format-details" Operation attr, "-default", "-supported",
    "-implemented"
    E. "document-format-version" Operation attr, "-default", "-supported"

    (B-E would have coresponding Document Description attributes indefined only
    in the Document Object spec, along with "compression", "document-format",
    and "document-natural-language" Document Description attributes).

    F. Close-Job operation

    G. job-copies (integer(1:MAX)) Job Template attribute
    H. job-cover-back (collection) Job Template attribute
    I. job-cover-front (collection) Job Template attribute
    J. job-finishings (1setOf type2 enum) Job Template attribute
    K. job-finishings-col (1setOf collection) Job Template attribute

    L. media-size-name (type3 keyword | name(MAX))
    M. media-type (type3 keyword | name(MAX))

    N. "ipp-attribute-fidelity" Job Description attribute
    O. "job-mandatory-attributes" Operation/Job Descritoin attributes

    P. "pdl-override-supported" new value 'guaranteed' (which is already in see
    [ippsave] section 8.1)

    AGREED: Move only G through M. Keep the rest in the IPP Document object
    spec because they are related to Document objects, even though they might
    be
    useful when not supporting the Document object.
    <dmc>
    Unless I'm missing something, G-K are only already-existing Job Template
    attributes that have been renamed with "job-" on the front. Why would
    anyone want to implement these renames unless they were doing the Document
    object?
    And M is also already-existing, in 5100.3. What is new about it that we
    would need a new spec?
    </dmc>

    Please comment on the IPP mailing list about any of these agreements.

    Tom



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 09:30:07 EDT