IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> NLO votes

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> NLO votes

Re: IPP> NLO votes

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:15:33 -0500

I agree the issue is confusing but it's not new. The issue has been pen=
ding
resolution since May 1998. I believe it was Hugo who pointed out, in Sa=
vannah,
that other outstanding prototype issues (such as this) are fair game fo=
r v1
closure.

I've gotten lost regarding what we are "voting" on. I reviewed the arch=
ives and
find an attempt by Carl Kugler to point out confusion and complexity re=
lated to
NLO. First note May 29, re-emphasis October 7. Based on a subsequent th=
read,
Carl issued a proposal (October 9) which I find clear and succinct.
http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/4604.html Later, Tom Hastings issued a=

separate, 4 part proposal with two votes embedded or implied. I THINK i=
t was
Tom's desire to replicate Carl's proposal (not modify it) into the
specifications and he felt it best to look at each part separately.

If there is a difference between Carl's proposal, taken as a whole, and=
that
which we are voting on, I would like to understand what is different, a=
nd why.
I do find it easier to review and understand Carl's one part write-up t=
han the
4 part scenario which seems to have interlinked behavior (if you vote f=
or this
you may not need that...).

Carl and others, including Keith Moore, have tried to express that the =
NL/NLO
scheme is unduly complex and prone to error. Carl's proposal represents=
a
simpler scheme where every text and name attribute would have an explic=
it
natural language thereby simplifying the implementation with fewer attr=
ibute
syntax's, and reducing the number of attributes which have multiple syn=
tax's -
all with NO LOSS of functionality.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
harryl@us.ibm.com

owner-ipp@pwg.org on 10/27/98 07:18:32 PM
Please respond to owner-ipp@pwg.org
To: ipp@pwg.org
cc:
Subject: IPP> NLO votes

Can somebody please state what the proposed changes are. I have tried t=
o
find the orginal proposal somewhere in the mail threads and cannot.

I will remind peole that we voted to that ipp1.0 was done other then th=
e
issues we raised at the bake-off. This was not raised then or in savana=
h.
Functioning interoperable implmentaitons can be built using the current=

spec. What suddenly changed?

=