Subject: Re: IPP>MOD add another issue [encoding nameWithLanguage and

From: Carl Kugler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:04:52 -0500

> I found it rather easy to implement when I did it.

Perhaps you had an implementation in mind when you wrote the spec.  Ease of
implementation depends on your internal representation for attributes, I
suppose, and our representation has a legacy of more than a year of IPP
evolution behind it. We can change it, but there's a large impact since
attributes are so central to the implementation.

> Only field c) is redundant

I wasn't addressing redundancy in the data stream, although that's a good
point, too.  What I meant is that it's redundant to specify a unique compound
attribute syntax for these two specific attributes (nameWithLanguage and
textWithLanguage]) when we already have a general 'compound-attribute' syntax.

 -Carl

('Course none of this will matter when we switch to XML.)

[email-masked] on 01/12/98 09:55:35 AM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@ibmus, [email-masked] @ internet
cc:
Subject: Re: IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>MOD add another issue [encodin

I found it rather easy to implement when I did it.

Only field c) is redundant, but I found the implementation simpler
when each value was preceded by a length because I already had code
that picked up a length n and then the value as the next n bytes.
It is then easy to check later that the sum of these bytes equals the
value length of the whole compound value.

Bob Herriot