IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry

Re: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry is right

From: Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Date: Thu Aug 17 2000 - 13:40:05 EDT

  • Next message: Wagner,William: "RE: IPP> machine readable etc. - why Harry is right"

    This thread just keeps getting more and more interesting.

    > If I recall correctly, Harry's approach was morphed into the not equivalent
    > Get because it did not address the established "requirement" that IPP
    > notification allow notification of recipients other that the client
    > submitting the job and at the time that the client was submitting the job.
    > The argument that third party notification and notification subscriptions
    > were not necessary was not accepted for IPP in general, but may be quite
    > valid for QualDocs. As such, this may be pursued in conjunction with the
    > QualDocs definition.

    I'm a printing customer interested in this thing called IPP.
    Would someone be so kind as to elucidate the compelling reasons
    and benefits for having multiple notification recipients. I
    guess I understand the concept. I just don't quite see the value.

    Please be patient and contribute what you can to this thread,
    since it will likely be referenced later on when real customers
    ask these kinds of questions, and it would be nice to have the
    summary background and rationale in a small, digestable format.

    (Have you ever seen a customer choke when you hand them a copy
    of the IPP spec? It's not a pretty sight, I assure you. ;-)

            ...jay



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 13:52:42 EDT