At 01:06 PM 2/27/97 PST, Robert Herriot wrote:
>>> 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 am starting to get really confused about this whole discussion. We have
decided that the model specification is to be made in a TRANSPORT
INDEPENDENT manner, and now people start suggesting that we should make IPP
dependent on HTML!
I think we are on the wrong track here and need to back up to the point,
where people started assuming that we make HTML part of the package.
My assumption up till now has been that certain functions in our overall
scenarios COULD be realized by using HTTP/HTML, but that such functions
would be OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of our three IPP standards document. I think
that bringing in HTML in this disciussion is starting to mix in too many
ideas about implementation into our model discussion, which we should not do.
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com