Sorry to tell you that the group did NOT reach concensus on Tom's last
SYNTHESIS proposal. There is no new object for the character set
and the existing 'prtGeneralCurrentLocaliztion' does NOT control
the charset for the several dozen strings still marked OCTET
STRING. The latest text does include Tom's suggested text based
around charsets which are supersets of US-ASCII (like Unicode
in UTF-8 encoding) for all of the OCTET STRINGs, but the charset
is unknown (note that this permits the existing HP PC8 and Lexmark
PC 850 implementations of RFC 1759 to be compliant with the
Printer MIB v2).
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
High North Inc
PO Box 221
Grand Marais, MI 49839
----------------------------- Harald's note ---------------------------
Received: from zombi (zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com) by snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
id AA19152; Mon, 4 Aug 97 05:53:27 EDT
Received: from alpha.xerox.com by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA15041; Mon, 4 Aug 97 05:49:55 EDT
Received: from lists.underscore.com ([22.214.171.124]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <54202(4)>; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 02:50:04 PDT
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA03822 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 05:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 4 Aug 1997 05:42:18 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA03697 for pmp-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 05:40:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: tyholt.uninett.no: Host munken.uninett.no [126.96.36.199] didn't use HELO protocol
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96
To: Tom Hastings <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Keith Moore <email@example.com>
Subject: PMP> Re: URGENT: SYNTHESIS proposal on definition of OCTET STRING to allow
superset of ASCII
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jul 1997 03:39:36 PDT."
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 02:40:58 PDT
This sounds interesting.....
- is it now clear that a SINGLE variable defines the localizations for
ALL localized strings within the Printer MIB?
- is it better to define "LocalizedString" as a Textual Convention
rather than using OCTET STRING and having the localization in the
description of the variable?
- I forgot what the third one was :-)
I think this is good, and since there is the variable, it *is*
possible to determine the charset in use, as per the AD's admonition.
If the group has consensus on this approach, I think I'll use it as an
example in my presentation on charset policy in the Thursday plenary....
back from holidays