At our Tucson meeting, the IPP group agreed with James Kempf that there
should be a separate SLP entry for each URI and that the URI associated with
the entry would be the printer's URI. Ira, I know that you disagreed with
If we stay with this decision, it implies to me that there is
a) no need for the 'printer-uri-supported' attribute in the template. It can
determined by finding all URI's containing a 'printer-name' with a
b) 'uri-security-supported' contains the security supported for the
associated URI and
not for other URIs associated with a printer.
c) the complexity of two parallel attributes is eliminated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...