UPD Mail Archive: UPD> RE: Media Names, case sensitivity

UPD> RE: Media Names, case sensitivity

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Mon Apr 02 2001 - 19:51:56 EDT

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "UPD> Re: Fwd: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available"


    About case sensitivity in names in the Media standard:

    Draft 0.3 had:

    Media Size Self Describing Names are not case sensitive but will always be
    presented in this standard using lower case characters.

    What I changed it to was:

    While Media Size Self Describing Names are presented in this standard using
    lower case characters, other standards that use these names, MUST indicate
    the case sensitivity for their conformance. Such other standards MAY:

    a) also require only lower case as in this standard
    b) allow lower, upper case, and mixed case to be used with the same
    meaning as the names in this standard, i.e., case insensitive matching
    c) require all uppercase letters to be used with the same meaning as
    the corresponding names in this standard.


    The important question is what interface is the media standard defining
    conformance requirements for? I had assumed that the media standard was NOT
    trying to define an interface that the Printer would implement or that a
    client would implement, but rather was giving a set of names and their
    semantics that other standards would reference. It would be up to these
    other standards to say whether or not case was important. For example, IPP
    says that keywords are all lower case, so that both client and Printer can
    count on having all lower case and not having to worry about case
    conversion. Other protocol, such as the Printer MIB use of MediaType and
    UPnP use of MediaType and MediaSize would have to say whether or not case
    was important. We might want the Media standard to RECOMMEND that these
    other standards only use all lower case. That would lower the burden on a
    Printer that is supporting, say, IPP, UPnP, and Printer MIB, if all three
    standards REQUIRED that the values be all lower case.

    BTW, I have seen some IANA Registries where the tokens are all upper case.
    That is why I included alternative c) above as well.

    Bottom line: The Media standard is writing conformance for other standards
    that reference the Media standard (like the IPP Notification Standard placed
    requirements on Delivery Method documents), not conformance for Printers or

    See my replies to your message below preceded by TH>



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 08:57
    To: Hastings, Tom N
    Cc: 'ipp@pwg.org'; 'upd@pwg.org'; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
    Subject: Media Names, case sensitivity


    I am curious as to why you changed my original statement that the names are
    not case sensitive to the the complicated set of requirements that, in
    states "do whatever you want, but explicitly state what you want."

    TH> The draft is stating that other standards that use these names do what
    they want, but those standards (such as IPP, UPnP, Printer MIB, etc.) MUST
    say what they require.

    Your specification puts a larger burden on the Printer, since the printer
    have to conform to the applications. (The printer may have to do a case
    conversion for some applications and not others.) So the printer (or other
    device) must know the exact format required by the application.

    TH> The Printer will have to conform to whatever standards the Printer
    chooses to support, i.e., IPP, UPnP, Printer MIB, ...

    Just stating the names are not case sensitive, puts the burden on the

    TH> I disagree. It depends on what the other standards say about case
    sensitivity. Perhaps the Media standard can RECOMMEND that other standards
    REQUIRE all lower case, as I suggested above. Wouldn't that help?

    But the client simply has to do a conversion on all names received to
    case he has chosen for his tables. The client does not need to know what
    the printer is sending.

    Whatever we conclude,, this text needs will be moved from section 5 to
    section 10, since it applies to all the names in the specification.

    TH> I agree it should be moved to a section that is common for all the
    names. However, section 10 is the authors section.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 19:52:26 EDT