Gee, Jay, why do you say that IPP is just the 90s name of DPA?
I haven't proposed any new attributes.
What is the additional complexity that you are concerned about?
I'm just clarifying what is already there, I thought.
By the way, a standard which is vague is not really a standard, since
different implementors will read it differently and then wonder why
the interoperability testing didn't succeed.
By the way, are there attributes that you think we could get rid of?
We intend to make a pruing pass and either remove some or make a base
level that is required for conformance. You ought to participate in
that to make certain that the base level is not too complex.
At 02:27 03/20/97 PST, JK Martin wrote:
>After reviewing Tom Hasting's most recent issues document, it is
>really starting to appear that "IPP" is simply the 1990's name
>for "DPA" in terms of scope and complexity.
>>Does anyone else out there share this view?