> > 2) We would like to emphasize a little more that IPP has it's roots in and
> > is intended to be "compatible subset of" DPA.
>> Can you (or anyone else) post a small message describing exactly how
> IPP is a "compatible subset" of DPA? And, perhaps more importantly,
> describe the significance of this relationship?
No, Jay, I for one cannot describe how IPP is a "compatible subset"
of DPA. Quite the contrary, I have been telling my management at
DAZEL that the IPP is knowingly diverging from the DPA/Posix standards.
I brought this up several times at earlier IPP meetings, and everybody
seemed comfortable with this.
I think that it is time to fish or cut bait with this issue. Either
we need to stop referring to DPA (and friends), or we need to do more
than mere lip service to make sure that the IPP actually is a
"compatible subset" of DPA. Given the leanings of the group, I frankly
do not understand we are still trying to maintain that heritage.
Jim Walker <walker at dazel.com>
System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX