> From: pmoore at peerless.com [mailto:pmoore at peerless.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 2:55 PM
>> First - we all agreed not to do it. This seems like a good reason not to do
>> [rgh reply]
> I concur that at the last meeting we did agree not to have a Machine
> Consumable format in 'mailto'. However, earlier this year we were going in
> the opposite direction and tried to get a Machine Consumable format to work
> in 'mailto'. We seemed to give up because the solutions were too complex.
>> When I discovered this simple solution, I thought it would be good to find
> out if PWG member are opposed to a Machine Consumable format regardless of
> the solution or are opposed only to complex solutions.
With all due respect, might I suggest you go back and read the *rest* of
Paul Moore's response and address the many other concerns he so clearly
stated. (I've attached Paul's msg for your convenience.)
IMHO, Paul asks the best question of all:
> Again I ask what the purpose is? Is the idea to enrich the end user experience
> or is it an attempt to overcome the 'INDP wont go through a firewall' issue.
Why do you feel we need machine-readable components in an email msg?
I know for a fact that I am not alone in being totally confused about
the real-world requirements for dynamic/binary data vs. simple textual
email for printing notifications. Why would anyone would *demand* relatively
real-time notifications for print jobs outside of a firewall, anyway?
(God only knows such a person would never PAY for software that does this,
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: pmoore at peerless.com
Subject: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The
IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:55:01 -0700