DPA seems like an "everthing in it from the beginning" type of standard
with implementations that are "NOT everything in it"
I was hoping that IPP would follow the IETF approach: keep it simple and make it a
reality. In other words, IPP should be "just the basics from the beginning" with
implmentations that are also "just the basics" Then there is some sort of growth path
with new versions with more attributes etc...
Look at HTML, HTTP, SMTP, FTP...
THE REASON WHY THEY WIN IS BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPIDLY SIMPLE. THEN THEY GET ACCEPTED AND
THEN THEY GROW rather than coming in with EVERYTHING in the spec, NOTHING gets
implemented, and there is NO SUCCESS
Some days I am tempted to rip the whole model document right in half
and just leave jobs status and printer status attributes. We all know
that is too simple, but since we all lean (myself included) to be too
complex maybe we just need some balance.
Scott
>>> JK Martin <jkm at underscore.com> 03/20/97 03:27am >>>
After reviewing Tom Hasting's most recent issues document, it is
really starting to appear that "IPP" is simply the 1990's name
for "DPA" in terms of scope and complexity.
Does anyone else out there share this view?
...jay