IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri

RE: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Fri, 6 Nov 1998 14:10:34 -0500

I thought the direction established between Monterey and Savannah was t=
o freeze
the June 30 draft to any additional "new function" which was under
consideration (IPP scheme, Security etc). I do not believe clarificatio=
n was
banned, otherwise, why did we Inteop test?

The motion - as recorded in the PWG Plenary (and my own) minutes clearl=
y
references "that we plan to update the June 30 drafts with corrections
resulting from the Bake-off (and other experience)..." There was nothin=
g in the
"vote" that said we could not or would not address deficiencies in our =
own
draft, in fact, I definitely understood this as the goal! Hugo clearly =
reminded
us, in Savannah, that topics already on the "issues list" were (potenti=
ally) as
significant as topics discovered at the bakeoff.

The decision how far to "go" with an implementation or when to "ship" i=
s an
individual one and we have all been very frustrated by the desire to "m=
ake
good" on our IPP efforts. I think most PWG members are sensitive to the=
fact
that we all ware similar shoes at some point... which fosters a coopera=
tive
demeanor worth preserving. I would like to continue to seek clean-cut
resolution to the NL/NLO problems which have been on the table for 5 mo=
nths
while stepping on as few toes as possible.

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

paulmo@microsoft.com on 11/06/98 11:38:29 AM
Please respond to paulmo@microsoft.com
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus, ipp@pwg.org, HPARRA@novell.com
cc: stuart.rowley@kyocera.com
Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri

Hindsight is a wonderful thing (BTW it was Savanahh not Monterey where =
we
finally really voted on the spec). We all had a vote, including Novell.=

Several people said - whoa, we havent tested localization, we havent te=
sted
security. Despite that the vote was unanimous (one abstention that was =
later
change to yes). People have taken product decisions based on that vote.=

What are you proposing - that the formally defined and agreed PWG votin=
g
process is not really binding and that we can all change our mind later=
. It
may or may not have been a good result - but it was the result.

We could have another vote undoing the previous one. Why not put that
forward as a motion in Tuscon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA@novell.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 10:09 AM
To: ipp@pwg.org; harryl@us.ibm.com
Cc: stuart.rowley@kyocera.com
Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri

I second what Harry and Stuart wrote. In retrospect, I can't believe t=
he
group voted to upheld the June 30th spec before we carried out any form=
al
interoperability testing of the spec. Why did the PWG gave its stamp o=
f
approval without formal proof that two independently-developed
implementations interoperated in all areas. I believe, the hours and h=
ours
of discussion trying to clarify what the spec means by language overrid=
e
disqualifies our implementations as "independent". If, despite our poo=
r
decision in Monterrey, we still want to stick with the June 30th spec, =
so be
it; but we should make formal interoperability testing part of the PWG
process so history doesn't repeat itself.

-Hugo

>>> Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> 11/06/98 10:39AM >>>
Stuart, you echo my sentiments exactly. I have tried, on the wire and i=
n the
calls to bring the focus back to Carl's original (and much simpler)
observations. (See http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/1490.html). I thin=
k the
problem is that some implementations are already using some of the
(difficult
to understand) "features" in striving for conformance to the June 30
drafts.
It's just unfortunate that we were not able to focus sooner on the prob=
lem
which was surfaced in May. I believe Tom tried to bend Carl's proposal =
into
the
reality of the situation... looking for a compromise solution. I agree.=
. it
looks that much more complicated in this context.

It is fairly well agreed there is not much we can do with respect to Se=
rvers
(Printers?), at this point but some hope may still lay in the Clients. =
If we
can restrict client behavior (say, to always use textWithLanguage) it m=
ight
govern server response (to, similarly, always use textWithLanguage)...
nearly
achieving Carl's proposal. But, some Servers already have decided to ma=
ke
use
of textWithoutLanguage in situations where Languages on the request and=

response are identical (a common sense implementation given the absence=
of a
rule like Carl was proposing... "always use textWithLanguage").

So, we feel pretty boxed in. I agree, however, any reasoning discussed =
on
the
call should be echoed on the DL for all to understand.

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

owner-ipp@pwg.org on 11/05/98 10:07:44 PM
Please respond to owner-ipp@pwg.org
To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com, ipp@pwg.org
cc:
Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri

Apparently the participants in the telecon and those "voting" on the
mailing list are completely different groups of individuals! Except for=
Bob
Herriott, no one expressed any con arguments for NLO 4 of 4. I only saw=
yes
"votes" (about 10 or 15 of them). So why the telcon decision of No. The=
re
is not even any reasons given why this decision was reached. Where is t=
he
discussion on the mailing list?

This type of mass back on forth makes me wonder how many really have a
clear understanding of these NLO issues (not that I do). Nearly everyon=
e
has expressed that the current mechanisms are overkill and very hard to=

understand.

I think the only really clearly articulated discussion of this on the
mailing list has been Carl Kugler's emails. On Oct 9 Carl sent the
following email titled IPP> Re: MOD OLD NEW Issue: Contradictory NLO re=
q.
This email suggests a very clear and to me appropriate solution. I neve=
r
saw on the list anyone state why not to accept Carl's proposal. After t=
his
email, we received the issue broken into several inter-related issues b=
y
Tom (which I read over and over and over, trying to understand).

I would now challenge those in the telecon who decided to keep name/tex=
t
withoutLanguage to re-read Carl's email (below) and state in what ways =
his
proposal is flawed. Until someone can adequately shoot down this clear
proposal of Carl's, then his proposal is what I am in favor of.

Thanks,

Stuart

-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
Stuart Rowley Kyocera Technology Development, Inc=

=