attachment-0001

Good goal in my estimation, and good observation that we'd need committed editors etc. .. yet, in my mind, the key questions... will we have critical mass. We'll need to address this fairly early in the discussion (ex. who expects they will implement, interop etc.). ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Ted Tronson" <TTRONSON@novell.com> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org 04/28/2003 09:16 AM <td>                To:        <ipp@pwg.org>         cc:                 Subject:        Re: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?</table> <tt>I think it is about time to get everyone on the same page again as well. I think with all of the new specs we have created some confusion. Ted Tronson Sr. Software Engineer iPrint Engineering 801-861-3338 Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net services software www.novell.com >>> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> 4/24/03 3:51:22 PM >>> Hi, Dennis Carney (IBM) recently observed that the IPP Document Object spec was starting to sound a lot like "IPP/1.2".  Below, Michael Sweet (CUPS) again raises the possibility of an "IPP.1.2". Is this a worthwhile idea? _If_ there was at least one other editor who was MS Word literate (Dennis Carney, Tom Hastings, ...?), I would volunteer to collaborate on writing an "IPP/1.2" spec with new significantly higher REQUIRED features that consisted entirely (or almost entirely) of pointers to the definitions of operations, objects, and attributes in the over 30 documents (IETF and IEEE/ISTO) that currently specify parts of IPP. Any takers? Cheers, - Ira McDonald  High North Inc ----- Excerpt ------ Michael Sweet wrote: >Hastings, Tom N wrote: >> ... >> 1. DEPRECATE the way a client can close a Job by supplying an empty > >Hmm, knowing that people are busy, etc., what are the chances that >we do an IPP/1.2 specification based upon the current 1.1 docs + >the common extensions (collections, notifications?, job-and-printer >ops, plus the document object stuff)? > >This is another extension which is pointing to an IPP/1.2 version >bump - deprecating operations is something that should be reserved >for new versions, since otherwise you might not have at least 1 >version to provide a transition period... > </tt>