> I have been following the thread. I did not offer an opinion until it
> appeared to work its way to the point of ...questionable rationality.
Geez, don't hold back, Bill. ;-)
> An example might be removing a paper tray should not cause all the
> alerts associated with media. But if a manufacturer/user has chosen
> to have a low toner condition precipitate an off line condition, these
> are still two separate conditions, which may be independently cleared.
> One could remove the low toner condition without the off line and
> vice-versa. To treat them as one condition seems unreasonable, and
> produces oddities like the alert that changes from a critical to a
> warning level.
With this statement you've completely disregarded the past statements
about what the user sees and expects. That's unfortunate. Others see
it differently than you.
> Again, just my opinion, but I think we have followed a line of
> reasoning without paying much attention to whether it makes sense.
I'm curious why you think the "line of reasoning" doesn't make sense.
However, perhaps you could respond to me privately, since it appears
this discussion grows tiring to the rest of the list.
There is perhaps a reasonable compromise that no one has yet offered:
If a vendor chooses to add two alert entries for the printer-stopping
low toner condition, then the offline alert should have its description
string clearly state that the reason for going offline is due to the
low toner condition, and not simply say "Offline" (as so many do now).
Is this a fair compromise?