I have seen at least three complex proposals presented in the last
several days. I have also observed several well constructed objections
to the proposals. This is a clear sign that the solution is not
ready for incorporation into the MIB.
If it is agreed that this is a problem that must be corrected in this
version, we must take the time to develop a proper solution. We must
not rush to create a solution that may be regretted later.
My preference at this time is to incorporate a solution to the
localization problem in the next version of the document.
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 email@example.com wrote:
> I want to put Tom Hasting's latest proposal aside for a
> moment and describe a problem that I realized yesterday was
> in the current definition of the Printer MIB. In HP's
> implementation of the Printer MIB according to Bob, they
> use 8 bit symbol sets in some of their read only objects
> depending on localization. In Lexmark's implementation
> of the Printer MIB, we use the PC 850 symbol set (which is
> an 8 bit symbol set) for all read only objects. HP may use
> PC 850 for their read only objects as well, I do not know
> but I think that is exactly the problem, there is no way to
> know which symbol set is being used for the read only objects
> not already covered by a localization object. This has never
> been seen as a customer problem up to now because I can imagine
> that all printers so far have used only US ASCII (lower code
> points) for most if not all read only objects. Most symbol sets
> do not vary in the lower code points but vary considerably in
> the upper code points. This means that everything works correctly
> until some printer implementation decides to use a code point
> in the upper portion of a symbol set for a read only object
> then all bets are off.
> Once I got over the shock when I saw Tom's latest proposal
> (Initially I said OH NO NOT ANOTHER LOCALIZATION PROPOSAL!!!!),
> I realized that it might be useful in solving the problem
> I described above. As a working group, we can say that there
> are known problems in the localization area and move forward
> without fixing these problems (which to me is an acceptable
> way to go. There are always going to be known problems. I
> would like to meet the person who says they shipped a perfect
> product with no known problems.) or we can stop and try
> the fix the problems that we see.
> Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.
> Senior Program Manager Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3
> Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW
> internet: firstname.lastname@example.org Lexington, KY 40550
> Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740