The following document describes XML:
http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-xml (8 Dec 1997)
The following document describes XSL which are style sheets for XML.
I'm not sure if this is important for us.
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-XSL-970910
> From ipp-owner@pwg.org Fri Jan 9 20:25:25 1998
> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:37:53 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
> From: Ron Bergman <rbergma@dpc.com>
> To: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> Delay of IPP ratification
> In-Reply-To: <34B69F3F.7F2EAC2E@underscore.com>
> X-X-Sender: rbergma@newmai.dpc.com
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Sender: ipp-owner@pwg.org
> X-Lines: 87
>
> I would like to echo some of the points presented by Jay.
>
> I thought that XML was a presentation layer protocol developed as the next
> generation HTML. Does XML include functionality beyond the presentation
> layer?
>
> If not, why would XML be any different than PostScript, PCL or HTML?
>
> Can anyone provide the URL to the current XML specification or tutorial
> for those persons (such as myself) who are not very knowledgeable
> regarding XML? I would like to be somewhat prepared if this does become a
> discussion topic in Maui.
>
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Jay Martin wrote:
>
> > Bob and Paul,
> >
> > Care to elucidate on the merits and applicability of XML to the IPP
> > model? Any known/expected problems in mapping? Any particular
> > benefits over alternative approaches?
> >
> > Perhaps most importantly, exactly *why* should XML even be
> > considered in the first place?
> >
> > Bob says that "XML is becoming an important protocol." We can all
> > think of lots of emerging protocols that may be viewed as important,
> > but are they applicable to network printing? How and why is XML
> > applicable to a network printing protocol?
> >
> > Please understand that I am not casting any kind of early vote
> > against XML here. Just trying to figure out why XML has suddenly
> > entered the fray.
> >
> > ...jay
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
> > -- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
> > -- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
> > -- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Robert Herriot wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with Paul that we should spend some time looking at XML before
> > > we commit to the current protocol. XML is becoming an important protocol.
> > >
> > > Bob Herriot
> > >
> > > > From ipp-owner@pwg.org Fri Jan 9 10:42:58 1998
> > > > From: Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com>
> > > > To: "'ipp@pwg.org'" <ipp@pwg.org>
> > > > Subject: IPP> Delay of IPP ratification
> > > > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:21:33 -0800
> > > > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
> > > > Sender: ipp-owner@pwg.org
> > > > Content-Length: 942
> > > > X-Lines: 19
> > > >
> > > > This is a formal request that we delay the finalization of the IPP spec
> > > > until we have looked at the possibility of using XML as the protocol format.
> > > >
> > > > I know this is revisiting an old issue but we need to make sure we do the
> > > > right thing. When the current format was proposed there was no good method
> > > > for representing structured data in an ASCII data stream. XML is now
> > > > available and seem to be the coming wave. I also know that most of the new
> > > > standards that will come out over the next year will be based around XML
> > > > (and protocol specific HTTP commands). By ensuring that we are in the centre
> > > > of these standards we will be able to leverage many common tools that will
> > > > emerge to support and manage these protocols.
> > > >
> > > > There will definitely be down-sides so we need to debate this issue - not
> > > > least the investment that some of us have already made in building using the
> > > > current spec.
> > > >
> > > > I think that somebody from MS will be in Hawaii.
> > > >
> > > > Paul Moore
> > > >
> >
>
>