> Although I agree that I see what appear to be contradictory comments
> about the base system (high end printer vs printer preceded by server
> vs hardware not able to implement), and I see some unlikely statements
> ($150 printers are still rated as personal printers, not workgroup
> printers), Jay's base premise frightens me.
You raise an interesting question about terminology here. I quickly
agree with you that $150 printers would be characterized as "personal"
printers and not "workgroup" printers. However, Tom repeatedly states
the IPP's intention to support "desktop" printers.
So, exactly how do we define a "desktop" printer? Hopefully this is
not a silly question, given that serious design decisions are being
made based on the need to support "desktop" printers.
Should only "network printers" be considered when defining implementation
constraints? (And yes, what constitutes a "network printer", etc?)
> The notion that IPP is *just* for internet printing (as distinguished
> from intranet or intra-enterprise printing) is a very frightening one.
> Granted that internet printing has a certain pizzas right now, I would
> still expect 90% of the printing will be within a company. I strongly
> question whether there is any rational in developing a protocol just
> for internet printing. Indeed, since one of the intentions is to
> provide a substantial improvement over LPR, I would certainly expect
> that intra-enterprise printing is the major target.
I sure hope so, too. What I see happening though (IMHO) is that the IPP
group is assuming that an HTTP-based approach should work equally well
in an *intranet* environment as an *internet* environment. This is why
I said "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Solving the intranet problem is just as big a need (no, bigger?) than
solving the Pay-for-Print and "fax replacement" requirements noted in
the IPP requirements doc.