You stated quite well what I think we agreed to. I would like to be
able to agree with your last statement:
"After some thought, I would be happy if a server only had to implement
the HTML binding, both for query and submission."
But the last time I suggested it, others said that HTML would not be
a good representation for a client that needs to get the meaning from it.
Do you have some additional proposals to resolve this issue? Are you
suggesting that HTML tags could hold such information?
On another related issue, would you expect an IPP query could supply the
sort of information that a ppd file supplies, namely the PostScript that
is associated with a particular attribute value?
> From szilles at Adobe.COM Thu Feb 27 14:15:50 1997
>> > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:06:37 -0800
> > From: Robert.Herriot at Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Herriot)
> > > From rdebry at us.ibm.com Thu Feb 27 09:40:59 1997
> > > From: rdebry at us.ibm.com> > >
> > > ... I'd suggest the following relative to the use of HTML
> > > and IPP:
> > >
> > > A Web Browser must support HTML (pretty obvious)
> > >
> > > An IPP Client must support IPP, and may optionally support HTML
> > >
> > > An IPP Server must support IPP and may optionally support HTML.
> > >
> > > I don't think that we can say that an IPP Server MUST support HTML in
> > > order to be IPP compliant. Actually sounds pretty silly to me to say that
> > > HTML is required to be IPP compliant! I don't think that this is an
> > > interoperability issue, is it?
> > >
> > Actually, we did say that an IPP server must support IPP AND HTML because
> > if HTML is optional, then a client which expects HTML, must have a fallback.
> > If clients must have a fallback to IPP, then no server need have HTML.
> > I think the primary issue is whether a server gives exactly the same
> > information and capabilities via IPP and HTML.
>> I would express Rogers list of statements somewhat differently and I
> think the difference is important as to why we said we would require
> HTML from the user.
>> A Web Browser must support HTML (pretty obvious)
>> A Client of the IPP Model may support access to that model using an
> HTML binding to the model information.
>> A Client of the IPP Model may support access to that model using an IPP
> defined binding to the model information (see Protocol Group)
>> An IPP Server must support must support both the IPP defined binding and
> the HTML binding to the model information
>> This recognizes the difference between supporting the model and
> supporting a partiucular binding to the model. At least from my point of
> view, this is why we made the statement.
>> After some thought, I would be happy if a server only had to implement
> the HTML binding, both for query and submission.