W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 2003

FW: XP> FW: Last call announcement for XHTML Print

From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:37:28 -0700
Message-ID: <020A3CF87FB5AC47AA67966B3384575503C7DBBD@xboi22.boise.itc.hp.com>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Cc: xp@pwg.org

Hello,

I'm forwarding Elliott's comments to the W3C mailing list

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: ElliottBradshaw@oaktech.com [mailto:ElliottBradshaw@oaktech.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:29 PM
To: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1)
Cc: xp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: XP> FW: Last call announcement for XHTML Print



Jim,

I reviewed the public version and here are a few comments.


1.  I am OK with requiring support for multiplexing.


2.  Required support for script, noscript, and hidden.  I don't mind this
change, exactly.  But (at the risk of re-opening a long debate) if the
assumption is that an XHTML-Print client is generating data specifically in
this language, then it should never generate these cases.  So mandating
support seems redundant.  On the other hand, if the intent is to gracefully
degrade when receiving data from other sources, then there are other issues
(e.g. frames) that also come up.


3.  The new treatment for attributes is nice.


4.  Section 2.1, last paragraph.  Changing the MIME type makes sense.  But I
assume that "application/xhtml+xml" could refer to other kinds of data
besides XHTML-Print.  In other words, the receiving side can't tell that
this data is XHTML-Print.  Unless he looks at the DOCTYPE...right?

I'm wondering if this change will be a problem for protocols such as UPnP
that use the MIME type to distinguish "document format" (in the Semantic
Model sense) when advertising capabilities.  For example,
http://www.upnp.org/download/Service_print_v1_020808.pdf says

  "All UPnP printers MUST support at least the
'application/vnd.pwg-xhtml-print' document format[XHTML-PRINT] ..."

This would have to change to something new, in a way that specifically
refers to XHTML-Print.


5.  Section 2.3.1, "Images" section, fourth bullet.  It used to say "Image
data within the object element need not be supported." and now it says "A
printer MAY choose to omit images referenced by a URI [RFC2396] containing a
scheme name other than cid [RFC2392] and http [RFC2616] ."  I'm confused.



------------------------------------------
Elliott Bradshaw
Director, Software Engineering
Oak Technology Imaging Group
781 638-7534



 

                    "BIGELOW,JIM

                    (HP-Boise,ex1)       To:     don@lexmark.com,
ElliottBradshaw@oaktech.com, 
                    "                     Miyazawa Shunsaku

                    <jim.bigelow@h
<Miyazawa.Shunsaku@exc.epson.co.jp>, xp@pwg.org      
                    p.com>               cc:

                    Sent by:             Subject:     XP> FW: Last call
announcement for XHTML 
                    owner-xp@pwg.o        Print

                    rg

 

 

                    07/24/2003

                    12:53 PM

 





Hello,

The W3C version of the PWG's XHTML-Print has achieved public status as  W3C
Last Call Working Draft.  I am cordially invite your review of the document
and eagerly await you comments.  Please feel free to forward this notice to
anyone you think should review and comment on the draft.

Substantive changes to the draft with respect to the PWG Proposed Standard:
1. Required support for the multiplexed document format as described in
Appendix B.2
(http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2003/WD-xhtml-print-20030723/#a_inline.2).
An informative note is added on the format of the such documents and printer
image processing. 2. Required support for the script module so that a
printer can detect and discard a script and render the contents of the
noscript element instead of the script. 3. Annotation of element attributes
in terms of required processing: must, should, may, and N/A. 4. required
support for the hidden form element so that it can be detected and its
content discarded. 5. more precision in the processing of
  5.1 td and th align and valign attributes
  5.2 kinds of URIs
  5.3 types of images


Best regards,

Jim Bigelow,

Editor: XHTML-Print & CSS Print Profile
W3C HTML and CSS Working Groups
Hewlett-Packard
208-396-2068
jim.bigelow@hp.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:28 AM
To: w3c chairs; HTML CG; www-html@w3.org
Cc: HTML WG
Subject: Last call announcement for XHTML Print



Comments may be sent to www-html-editor@w3.org
The Last Call review period ends on 2359Z on 7 September 2003.

The following are the working groups that are especially invited to review
the draft:

    CSS
    Device Independence

The decision to go to last call is minuted at:
http://www.w3.org/2003/07/23-html-irc#T14-22-51

The current status of the HTML Patent Statements is available at:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2002/Disclosures.html

Title, URL and status:

XHTMLT-Print http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2003/WD-xhtml-print-20030723

XHTML-Print is member of the family of XHTML Languages defined by the
Modularization of XHTML [XHTMLMOD]. It is designed to be appropriate for
printing from mobile devices to low-cost printers that might not have a
full-page buffer and that generally print from top-to-bottom and
left-to-right with the paper in a portrait orientation. XHTML-Print is also
targeted at printing in environments where it is not feasible or desirable
to install a printer-specific driver and where some variability in the
formatting of the output is acceptable.

This document contains the XHTMLT-Print W3C Working Draft of 23 July 2003
and is a Last Call Working Draft for review by W3C members and other
interested parties. This document is in the Last Call review period, which
ends on 7 September 2003. Comments are to be sent to www-html-editor@w3.org
(archive). This specification is based, in large part, on a work by the same
name, XHTMLT-Print [XHTMLPRINT] from the Printer Working Group (PWG), a
program of the IEEE Industry Standard and Technology Organization. The PWG
specification has been submitted to the W3C Recommendation Track with the
agreement that it will revert to the PWG if a Candidate Recommendation has
not been produced by 06 May 2005.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
Chair, HTML WG
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 16:38:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:54 UTC