IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD/PRO - simple proposal for providing dictionary-like

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD/PRO - simple proposal for providing dictionary-like

RE: IPP> MOD/PRO - simple proposal for providing dictionary-like

Turner, Randy (rturner@sharplabs.com)
Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:39:19 -0800

We did talk about future IPPv2 encodings and transports, but no formal
WG concensus was declared since it wouldn't have been appropriate when
we don't even have version 1.0 documents at "proposed" yet.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Moore [SMTP:paulmo@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 4:16 PM
To: 'imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com'; jkm@underscore.com
Cc: ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> MOD/PRO - simple proposal for providing
dictionary-like capability

As I said below - this was an informal consensus. Everybody I
spoke to about
it said that they thought that we would have to do XML to handle
things like
dictionaries, etc.

Yes it completely breaks compatability - this is why I raised
the issue as
strongly as I did. I still think that the Maui decision was
wrong (but that
is water under the bridge now).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com
[SMTP:imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 4:17 PM
> To: jkm@underscore.com; Paul Moore
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> MOD/PRO - simple proposal for providing
> dictionary-like capability
>
> Hi Jay and Paul,
>
> Yes, I'm interested to hear more about the 'decision' to do
> IPPv2 on XML in Maui. It sure didn't widely penetrate the
> mailing list for the rest of us people. And it sure TOTALLY
> breaks backward compatibility.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald (High North)
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> [Jay's note]
> From ipp-owner@pwg.org Wed Apr 1 15:37:41 1998
> Return-Path: <ipp-owner@pwg.org>
> Received: from zombi (zombi.eso.mc.xerox.com) by
snorkel.eso.mc.xerox.com
> (4.1/XeroxClient-1.1)
> id AA19155; Wed, 1 Apr 98 15:37:40 EST
> Received: from alpha.xerox.com by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)
> id AA24661; Wed, 1 Apr 98 15:31:25 EST
> Received: from lists.underscore.com ([199.125.85.30]) by
alpha.xerox.com
> with SMTP id <52295(4)>; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:31:32 PST
> Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by
lists.underscore.com
> (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA16498 for
<imcdonal@eso.mc.xerox.com>; Wed,
> 1 Apr 1998 15:28:01 -0500 (EST)
> Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 1 Apr 1998
15:20:22 -0500
> Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com
(8.7.5/8.7.3) id
> PAA15724 for ipp-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:20:09 -0500
(EST)
> Message-Id: <3522A16D.757A81B1@underscore.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:19:57 PST
> From: Jay Martin <jkm@underscore.com>
> Organization: Underscore, Inc.
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; I)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> To: Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com>
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: IPP> MOD/PRO - simple proposal for providing
dictionary-like
> capability
> References:
>
<5CEA8663F24DD111A96100805FFE6587030BC41B@red-msg-51.dns.microsoft.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: ipp-owner@pwg.org
> Status: R
>
> Paul,
>
> Sorry, but I wasn't able to attend the Maui meeting, so
perhaps
> you can clarify something about the perceptions of "IPP v2"
> for me.
>
> The way I read your message (below), IPP v2 will have a
totally
> different encoding than IPP v1 (ie, non-standard BER-like
> quasi-binary encoding vs. structured text).
>
> Is this correct?
>
> ...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   --
	>
----------------------------------------------------------------------