Randy Turner said:
>Well, I don't think Microsoft needs the IETF to "rubber-stamp" an
>internet printing standard. Its like Jeff Case said, "Microsoft is the
>world's largest and most successful standards organization". I am
>hoping that Microsoft (and others) are still open to technical
>contributions from the PWG
It is not my intention to "rubber-stamp" Microsoft's current
implementation; however, I think we can learn a lot by examining
their much simpler approach and creating an OS independent
standard on par with their proposal.
>I think with a few slight modifications to their design, we could say
>that it might approach a minimally conforming implementation of IPP; I
>personally don't see any reason to create two standards, and there
>are aspects of their command structure which impose Microsoft's
>spooling model on systems that would consider such a design
>unnecessary. I would prefer a more leaner approach that would
>lend itself to better performance on HTTP 0.9 and HTTP 1.0
>environments and would allow easier implementation (essentially
>fewer POST operations).
I think we are in basic agreement here. My major difference
is to use the simple POST implementation for the minimally
conforming implementations and us the new methods (should we
map to HTTP) for the more robust implementations.
>As an aside, I think a priority should be to make IPP
>transport independent, with separate documents describing
>individual transport mappings. The IPP and transport mapping
>work can be accomplished (somehwat) in parallel to achieve
>timely completion of the work.
I have agreed with this plan all along.
*************************************************************
* Don Wright (don at lexmark.com) Lexmark International *
* Manager Strategic Alliances *
* 740 New Circle Rd Phone: 606-232-4808 *
* Lexington, KY 40511 Fax: 606-232-6740 *
*************************************************************