IPP>PRO - Print by reference

IPP>PRO - Print by reference

IPP>PRO - Print by reference

JK Martin jkm at underscore.com
Wed Jun 4 15:46:37 EDT 1997


Jeff,


You know, your response leads me to say something that may seem like
a contradiction to some:


  If forced to decide on whether to include Print-by-Reference as
  a base IPP requirements VERSUS having only a single level of IPP
  conformance, then I would vote for the single level of conformance
  in a heartbeat.


Yeah, that means I'd be willing to give up the highly desired feature
of Print-by-Reference if it resulted in a SINGLE level of IPP conformance
for the first release of IPP in the marketplace.


Interoperability is Number One.  All else is subordinate.


Hmmm... that's putting the cart before the horse.  How about:


Pervasive acceptance and deployment is Number One.  And this can only
be achieved (from industry experience) by pervasive interoperability.


Thanks for helping with the prioritization process, Jeff.


	...jay


PS:  Now, about that SWP proposal from Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard...


When are the others in the IPP list going to start the discussion on
this topic, the very thing that created the "Levels of Conformance"
thing in the first place?...




----- Begin Included Message -----


From: jeff at boulder.qms.com (Jeff Copeland)
Subject: Re: IPP>PRO - Print by reference
To: jkm at underscore.com (JK Martin)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:36:27 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: ipp at pwg.org


JK Martin wrote,
	a well-thought-out message about print-by-reference, ending with
	the question,
> Anyone out there with an opinion on this situation?


	As an employee of a printer company (though speaking for
	myself :-), I have to agree with Stephen Holmstead's misgivings
	about IPP getting so bloated that it can't fit into a printer.


	Jay, you and I are seeing different things:  I'm hearing from
	our marketing folks that people actually *do* want all that
	functionality in the printer, rather than having to hang printers
	off of servers.


	However, that discussion aside --- mostly because I need to think
	up arguments as well-reasoned as the ones of Jay's to which I'm
	responding, and beat some more information out of the marketing
	folks --- I think Jay's statement:


> I agree with Roger deBry that Print-by-Reference should be a base
> capability for IPP.  I also believe that we are headed for a trip
> through Interoperability Hell if we continue along the track of
> supporting multiple levels of IPP conformance, and that we should only
> focus on a single conformance level at this time.


	is a vitally important point.	No matter what we decide on
	this issue -- or a host of others like it -- if we don't have a
	single IPP conformance level, we will have simply shot ourselves
	in the foot.  Let's remember this every time one of us mentions
	multiple conformance levels.



-- 
Jeffrey L Copeland			+1-303-443-7227 x14
QMS, Inc, Boulder R&D Center		fax:  +1-303-443-7107
2945-D Center Green Court South		jeff at boulder.qms.com
Boulder, CO 80301




----- End Included Message -----




More information about the Ipp mailing list