As an employee of a printer company (though speaking for
myself :-), I have to agree with Stephen Holmstead's misgivings
about IPP getting so bloated that it can't fit into a printer.
Jay, you and I are seeing different things: I'm hearing from
our marketing folks that people actually *do* want all that
functionality in the printer, rather than having to hang printers
off of servers.
However, that discussion aside --- mostly because I need to think
up arguments as well-reasoned as the ones of Jay's to which I'm
responding, and beat some more information out of the marketing
folks --- I think Jay's statement:
> I agree with Roger deBry that Print-by-Reference should be a base
> capability for IPP. I also believe that we are headed for a trip
> through Interoperability Hell if we continue along the track of
> supporting multiple levels of IPP conformance, and that we should only
> focus on a single conformance level at this time.
is a vitally important point. No matter what we decide on
this issue -- or a host of others like it -- if we don't have a
single IPP conformance level, we will have simply shot ourselves
in the foot. Let's remember this every time one of us mentions
multiple conformance levels.
-- Jeffrey L Copeland +1-303-443-7227 x14 QMS, Inc, Boulder R&D Center fax: +1-303-443-7107 2945-D Center Green Court South jeff@boulder.qms.com Boulder, CO 80301