Any titles would be better than what we have now.
If I recall correctly, the title "Set 1" was originally suggested by Paul
Moore as a way to identify the set without having to generate a
complex title. Thus the original "Set 1" was just to be "Additional
Operations, Set 1". I now don't remember what the title evolved
into before it was integrated into IPP/1.1, but it most likely did
I agree that more descriptive titles are better, as long as they are
simple. Either of your suggestions are fine, but I would not
recommend changing "Set 3" to "Set 1". We have been using
the "Set" label for so long this would add significant confusion.
"Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
> Sounds like a problem we should fix in the titles of Set2 and Set3.
> However, Carl-Uno and I suggest that we should have some more description in
> the title too, such as:
>> Internet Printing Protocol: Additional Administrative Operations, Set 2
>> Internet Printing Protocol: Additional Job and Printer Operations, Set 2
>> Internet Printing Protocol: Device Operations, Set 3
>> (or should the latter be Set 1, since we haven't had any Device operation
>> For comparison, the current name for the Set operations is:
>> Internet Printing Protocol: Job and Printer Set Operations
>> Carl-Uno suggests we discuss this on the IPP telecon this Wednesday, and on
> the mailing list.
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma at hitachi-hkis.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 17:43
> To: Tom Hastings; cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> Subject: Set2 Operations
>> This title is becoming extremely confusing. I suggest it be changed to:
>> Internet Printing Protocol: Additional Operations, Set 2
>> And a similar change for set 3.
>> These titles appear to be more descriptive. i.e. they are actually
> *additional* operations, not *set* operations.
>> Ron Bergman