FW: IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post

FW: IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post

FW: IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post

Babak Jahromi babakj at MICROSOFT.com
Tue Feb 25 14:42:39 EST 1997

Let me calrify a point regarding the support in "stock" clients for new
HTTP methods:

I was not including the browsers here, rather I was referring to the
underlying APIs that clients programs can call to issue these methods
(browsers would just be another client programs in this frame work). I
was basically saying that Win32 Internet/Intranet APIs do allow the use
of a new HTTP method. So anyone, perhaps the IPP printer client module,
can depend on these APIs to issue a custom IPP method over HTTP.

Again, not that I believe we need to do this at this point.


>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Babak Jahromi 
>Sent:	Tuesday, February 25, 1997 10:01 AM
>To:	'rdebry at us.ibm.com'; ipp at pwg.org
>Subject:	RE: IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post
>At this point Microsoft in not inventing a new HTTP printing method for NT
>5.0. I was only talking about the future possiblities. I am not even
>convinced inventing a new HTTP method would by us anything. But it seems like
>we can invent new methods if it turns out to be beneficial, and still depend
>on stock Web servers and clients.
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	rdebry at us.ibm.com [SMTP:rdebry at us.ibm.com]
>Sent:	Tuesday, February 25, 1997 7:22 AM
>To:	Babak Jahromi; ipp at pwg.org
>Subject:	IPP> FW: MyPost vs. Post
>Babek, so would you propose one new method, say "PRINT" with sub-operations
>express the IPP methods, or would you propose several new HTTP methods, one
>each IPP method?

More information about the Ipp mailing list