If XML has the promise of providing a better protocol format,
then I am willing to take a look at it. If we decide that XML does
make sense, will Microsoft have a reasonably complete mapping
to propose? I would be hesitant to sign up for a completely new
approach without the promise of being able to quickly produce
a mapping document with the same level of function and detail
as the current one. If there's six months of effort required to figure
out how to use XML in IPP, then I'd most certainly vote against it!
I assume that this does not affect the model and semantics!
Roger K deBry
Senior Technical Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: rdebry at us.ibm.com
phone: 1-303-924-4080
---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 01/09/=
98 01:44
PM ---------------------------
ipp-owner at pwg.org on 01/09/98 06:42:40 AM
Please respond to ipp-owner at pwg.org @ internet
To: ipp at pwg.org @ internet
cc:
Subject: IPP> Delay of IPP ratification
This is a formal request that we delay the finalization of the IPP spec=
until we have looked at the possibility of using XML as the protocol fo=
rmat.
I know this is revisiting an old issue but we need to make sure we do t=
he
right thing. When the current format was proposed there was no good met=
hod
for representing structured data in an ASCII data stream. XML is now
available and seem to be the coming wave. I also know that most of the =
new
standards that will come out over the next year will be based around XM=
L
(and protocol specific HTTP commands). By ensuring that we are in the c=
entre
of these standards we will be able to leverage many common tools that w=
ill
emerge to support and manage these protocols.
There will definitely be down-sides so we need to debate this issue - n=
ot
least the investment that some of us have already made in building usin=
g the
current spec.
I think that somebody from MS will be in Hawaii.
Paul Moore
=