I agree the issue is confusing but it's not new. The issue has been pending
resolution since May 1998. I believe it was Hugo who pointed out, in Savannah,
that other outstanding prototype issues (such as this) are fair game for v1
I've gotten lost regarding what we are "voting" on. I reviewed the archives and
find an attempt by Carl Kugler to point out confusion and complexity related to
NLO. First note May 29, re-emphasis October 7. Based on a subsequent thread,
Carl issued a proposal (October 9) which I find clear and succinct.
http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/4604.html Later, Tom Hastings issued a
separate, 4 part proposal with two votes embedded or implied. I THINK it was
Tom's desire to replicate Carl's proposal (not modify it) into the
specifications and he felt it best to look at each part separately.
If there is a difference between Carl's proposal, taken as a whole, and that
which we are voting on, I would like to understand what is different, and why.
I do find it easier to review and understand Carl's one part write-up than the
4 part scenario which seems to have interlinked behavior (if you vote for this
you may not need that...).
Carl and others, including Keith Moore, have tried to express that the NL/NLO
scheme is unduly complex and prone to error. Carl's proposal represents a
simpler scheme where every text and name attribute would have an explicit
natural language thereby simplifying the implementation with fewer attribute
syntax's, and reducing the number of attributes which have multiple syntax's -
all with NO LOSS of functionality.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
harryl at us.ibm.comowner-ipp at pwg.org on 10/27/98 07:18:32 PM
Please respond to owner-ipp at pwg.org
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> NLO votes
Can somebody please state what the proposed changes are. I have tried to
find the orginal proposal somewhere in the mail threads and cannot.
I will remind peole that we voted to that ipp1.0 was done other then the
issues we raised at the bake-off. This was not raised then or in savanah.
Functioning interoperable implmentaitons can be built using the current
spec. What suddenly changed?