Well, I think we need to add at least one required document format. How
that needs to proceed I'll leave up to others.
How do the other members feel about this?
Also, a PWG developed test suite for IPP validation! I like the idea. I
remember talking about this on several occasions. If it's not on our to-do
list, it should be.
Michael R Sweet
<msweet at apple.com
07/31/2008 05:07 <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
Dave Whitehead <david at lexmark.com>,
ipp at pwg.org, "Farrell, Lee"
<Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>,
owner-ipp at pwg.org,
ptykodi at tykodi.com
Re: IPP> RFC: Add required
document-format values for IPP v2?
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
> 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
> 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