Subject: [IPP] Comments on IPP/2.0 SE

From: "William Wagner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 23:06:38 -0400

All,

Sorry about these comments on IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition coming after
PWG last call, but I have just been made aware of them. They are strictly
editorial and I request that they be considered with the last call comments
next Monday. The comments come from people looking at this document afresh,
un-influenced by having looked at this stuff for so long. Although I
understand that many of the objections are to things intentionally done as
they are to parallel the first edition, I believe that the observations have
merit in that they reflect what may be confusing to implementers.

-----------------------------------------
1.	Section 5:
Section 5 Heading, the subsections and the tables 3, 4, and 5 listing the
conformance requirements for the operations in IPP/2.0, IPP/2.1 and IPP/2.2
are all labeled "Required Operations in...". However they also include
Recommended and Optional operations. This is confusing. Perhaps re-labeling
Sections and tables (other than Table 2) "IPP/XXX Conformance Requirements-
Operations" might be clearer?

2.  Section 6
In a similar way, Section 6 Heading, subheadings, tables (other than Table
6)  and introductory paragraph all refer to "Required Attributes" when in
fact some recommended and optional attributes are also included and
referenced in notes. It is understood that may reflect a desire to explain
why the attribute is not required, but to have a table labeled Required
Attributes which contains attributes which are recommended or optional was
found confusing. I suggest that the "Required" table contain just Required
attributes. If it is necessary to explain why some attributes are not
required perhaps a separate table or just a separate paragraph somewhere
else in the document could identify these attributes and the rational.

2.	Section 6.1:
Although the text in this section and in the subsequent sections does
explicitly mention that the attributes included in table 6 are required in
IPP/2.0,/2.1 and /2.2, the subsection heading "Original Required IPP/1.1
Attributes" might not call enough attention to the fact that these are
IPP/2.x required attributes as well. Perhaps re-labeling the subsection
"Original Required IPP/1.1 Attributes also Required for IPP/2.0,/2.1 and
/2.2", something of that sort would help.

3.	Section 6.3:
The printer-alert and printer-alert-description attributes are the only
entries with conformance changes between versions not mentioned in the
notes. For clarity, this section should include a note about the status
change from table 7.
Notes 2 and 4 in section 6.4 already do this for the same change to other
attributes between tables 8 and 9.

4.	Section 6.3:
The media-col, media-col-default and media-col-supported entries in table 8
all refer to note 1, but the note only describes the media-col entry.

5.	Section 6.3:
It may just be me, but I think it might help to have some explanation of
notes 1 & 2, which state that the collection but not all members of the
collection are required.

6.	 Table 8
The proof-print and which-jobs-supported attribute entries in the table
incorrectly refer to note 3 instead of the actual reference in note 4.

Thanks,

Bill Wagner

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp