IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)

Jay Martin jkm at underscore.com
Tue Aug 15 22:57:14 EDT 2000


Ira,

> Therefore, the plaintext body of the simple 'mailto:'
> notification CANNOT contain really useful localized
> stuff unless the IPP Printer assumes a very significant
> additional implementation burden (e.g, full POSIX
> message catalogs with substitution parameters).

Ummm...I think we're talking past each other here.
I think we're in violent agreement.

And yes, you're right.  This whole argument is _VERY_ odd.

	...jay


"McDonald, Ira" wrote:
> 
> Jay,
> 
> This whole argument is _very_ odd.
> 
> The IPP Client ALREADY has to do client-side
> localization of ALL of the names of IPP attributes
> and the keyword values for many IPP attributes.
> 
> The IPP Printer PRESENTLY never has to do server-side
> localization of any of those.
> 
> Therefore, the plaintext body of the simple 'mailto:'
> notification CANNOT contain really useful localized
> stuff unless the IPP Printer assumes a very significant
> additional implementation burden (e.g, full POSIX
> message catalogs with substitution parameters).
> 
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
>   High North Inc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Martin [mailto:jkm at underscore.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 6:22 PM
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: Herriot, Robert; IETF-IPP
> Subject: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM -
> The IPP Notification I-Ds will now go the IESG)
> 
> > Does allowing the Notification Recipient [to] localize the messages make
> it more
> > desirable to require the Printer to send machine consumable upon client
> > request (in addition to the text/plain)?
> 
> Yes, but I'll bet big money that the COSTS substantially outweigh
> the BENEFITS.  Remember, you're talking some serious client-side
> installations to make this work as you describe.
> 
> I'm not saying that your analysis isn't correct, or that your
> conclusions aren't interesting.  (They are.)  I just think that the
> serious client-side software situation would drive the costs so
> as to exceed the benefits.
> 
> I'd like to hear what others thing along these lines.
> 
>         ...jay



More information about the Ipp mailing list