Ira McDonald wrote:
>> I agree with Dave Whitehead that required document formats (or any other
> new IPP requirements) belong in a separate standards-track PWG spec.
Again, we're already changing the ipp-versions-supported and the IPP
header to have 2.x version numbers. Doing a separate spec that is
literally 8 pages of boilerplate and 1 page of real content seems like
a lot of overhead for this!
> Prototyping in the PWG Process does NOT require any interoperability testing
> at all. It's just a partial implementation (no minimum content) by a
> single vendor.
Keep in mind that CUPS already supports 3 out of the 4 formats I've
proposed. However, I'd argue that we need at least one printer
vendor to implement it as well...
Also, given the mess we have today, I think we really (really!) need
to do interop testing and come up with a standard test suite that
vendors can use to self-validate. (CUPS already has much of this in
its "make check" automated tests to validate its IPP/1.1 conformance)
> If we need new IPP projects, then so be it. But please let's not destroy the
> chance of IPP2x by introducing new content and breaking the concensus
> to proceed that was based on no new content.
IPP/2.x with no required document formats is no better than IPP/1.1.
> IPP/1.0 implementations DO NOT conform to IPP/1.1 and WILL NOT conform
> to IPP/2.0 - end of story.
True. The question is, who will upgrade to IPP/2.0 if there is no
compelling reason to do so?
Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer