IPP>MOD - HTML and IPP streams

IPP>MOD - HTML and IPP streams

IPP>MOD - HTML and IPP streams

rdebry at us.ibm.com rdebry at us.ibm.com
Fri Feb 28 12:22:25 EST 1997

Epilogue: Roger K deBry
Senior Techncial Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080

I doubt that we have consensus here.  Personally, I think the use of HTML as
optional support is quite a nice approach to providing information not in IPP or
to provide it in a more elegant or manufacturer-unique way. The use of HTML
templates in the Microsoft implementation is a nice example of allowing the
printer manufacturer to adorn their responses with a logo or whatever they use
to add unique value.

Another example would be the Kinko's case where I could use standard HTML to
put up a slick intro-page, advertise the day's specials, negotiate complex
costs (print 50-100 copies for $xx.xx), etc., but then use standard IPP to
communicate the print job.

In both of these cases, I think that we ought to view HTML as an optional
in a printing system, and not a mandatory server capability!!! It's certainly
not part
of IPP in my mind.

---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 02/28/97 10:12
AM ---------------------------

        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        02/28/97 09:25 AM

cc: ipp @ pwg.org at internet
Subject: Re[2]: IPP>MOD - HTML and IPP streams

     I, and I expect others, seem to have missed a major step here. I would
     appreciate some clarification of the perceived relation between IPP
     and HTML. "Support" is perhaps too imprecise a term.

     1. If, as Randy suggests, HTML is considered as a PDL to be delivered
     to the printer interpreter, then it needs no mention in IPP any more
     than any other PDL.

     2. If, as Bob's message seems to suggest, HTML is a parallel
     implementation to IPP ( "the same information and capabilities via IPP
     and HTML"), some clarification of how this is to be done would be
     helpful. In addition, the need for two parallel capabilities is
     unclear. If IPP is browser oriented, and the browsers must 'support'
     HTML, and the desired capabilities can be provided with HTML (???),
     then why do IPP?

     3. If, as Roger's message suggests, HTML is an optional facility that
     may be used by IPP to, perhaps, provide more elegant messages to the
     user, it would seem that a fallback already exists and that HTML
     support is optional.

     Again, I would appreciate a quick summary of the perceived
     relationship between IPP and HTML.

     Bill Wagner, Osicom/DPI

     ______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: Re: IPP>MOD - HTML and IPP streams
Author:  rturner at sharplabs.com at Internet
Date:    2/27/97 1:54 PM

Keep in mind how future implementers are going to read the statement
"A Server must support HTML". We (and some future incarnation of
an IPP WG) are basically going to end up with a core
IPP standards-track RFC, with several other supporting documents,
        * RFC XXXX IPP Model, Syntax and Semantics (Core Protocol)
        * RFC XXXX IPP over HTTP 1.1 (1 particular mapping)
        * RFC XXXX IPP over HTTP 1.0 (another...)
        * RFC XXXX IPP over ONC (yet another....)
        * RFC XXXX IPP over DCE (ditto)
        * RFC XXXX IPP over (Other transports, etc.)
        * RFC XXXX IPP Security
        * RFC XXXX IPP Commercial Transaction Extensions

IMHO, I think the core document should not mandate a particular mapping
or HTML,
an IPP implementation MUST be compliant with

        * The core document
        * One or more mapping documents

And that should be about it. The way I see it, HTML is just another PDL,
and is
handled by some interpreter module that is outside the scope of IPP. The
only thing that
IPP includes that comes from the HTML world is the requirement that
must be generated and understood by clients and servers.

Just my 0.02 worth


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.

Randy Turner
Network Architect
Sharp Laboratories of America
rturner at sharplabs.com

More information about the Ipp mailing list