From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:43:13 +0900 From: Takaaki Higuchi In-reply-to: <45241950.4070208@Sun.COM> Sender: Takaaki.Higuchi@Sun.COM Message-id: <45247141.5040405@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <45241950.4070208@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] [Printing-sc] OPVP specification and use of UPDF List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: printing-architecture , "Printing-Sc (E-mail)" , printing-japan@freestandards.org as far as I am concerned, I don't mind such updates if it does not affect to existing codes(sample implementations). could you provide us the exact pages and lines for me to expedite our local discussions ? thanks in advance, Takaaki Higuchi Norm Jacobs wrote: > At today's architecture meeting, we discussed the proposed OPVP > specification in it's current form. We discussed the issue with the > method of describing properties that was brought up at the last > OpenPrinting SC meeting. The issue is that the specification does not > require a conforming implementation to support a specific scheme, but > instead simply states that the implementation can support any scheme it > likes. The specification goes on to use UPDF as an example. > > What we are looking for is a statement in the specification that selects > a required scheme to facilitate standard > description of properties so that there is a known method of specifying > properties. Without this, it becomes less likely that renderers and > drivers will be able to be used outside of the specific renderer or > driver that they were designed to be used with. > > We would appreciate it if someone would come to the OpenPrinting > Steering Committee meeting next week prepared to respond to this. Once > this is addressed, we can move forward with the process. > > -Norm