>>>If I remember correctly, at the Maui meeting we agreed that we wanted to
>>make changes in IPP v1.1 to support IPP2IFAX or HI-FI DOCS or whatever it's
>>called now. I'm in favor of moving along as soon as possible on IPP v1.1,
>>but it does seem premature since we haven't really decided what the HI-FI
>>DOCS work entails, or what it will require from IPP.
>>Right Nick!
>>Won't we look smart if we go with V1.1 now and discover in a month or
>two that a simple change or the addition of some attribute would have
>made everything work better? Sure we can add an attribute later but
>it would be nice for even optional attributes to be in the base
>standard?
>
Don .. In your estimation what needs to be done to IPP?
All I can say it that the IPP WG should make no decisions on the protocol
based on what may or may not happen with HI-FI DOCS. It is a BOF, an idea.
We have already had one tif over TIFF on this list and I see no reason to
repeat that.
If you believe that a couple of more months are necessary to review, for
instance , the 2nd bake off results then that seems a reasonable position,
but Larry Masinter is correct. IPP has had a lot of work invested in it
and sometimes its time to take to protocol to market. It has been my
experience that most vendors are highly reluctant to ship product in the
absence of Draft Standard status. We have certainly seen that in the FAX WG.
Some things can be over-engineered and lord knows some IETF WG's seem to go
on forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax 314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey at ix.netcom.com
eFAX 815.333.1237
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<