IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> 2 more significant proposed incre

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> 2 more significant proposed incre

Re: IPP> 2 more significant proposed increases in conformance requirements for the IPP Document object spec

From: Mike Sweet (mike@easysw.com)
Date: Mon Apr 21 2003 - 17:08:35 EDT

  • Next message: Mike Sweet: "Re: IPP> 1 more significant proposed conformance change to the IPP Documen t object spec"

    Dennis Carney wrote:
    > This might be an awful idea, so feel free to shoot it down with vicious
    > force...
    > Based on the desire to have extensions that do not include OPTIONAL items,
    > might it make sense to break the current Document object spec into two:
    > - The "Base Document object" spec, which defines the basics of the Document
    > object and has no OPTIONAL items: everything is mandatory. This would make
    > interop a breeze, and would hopefully also encourage adoption since the
    > spec would hopefully be relatively small.
    > - The "Extended Document object" spec, containing all the currently
    > OPTIONAL items. This spec *could* also make all the extensions mandatory
    > (I would think that making absolutely *everything* mandatory would
    > discourage adoption, however).
    > The process of going through the current spec to determine which items are
    > "Base" and which are "Extended" might also result in determining which
    > items aren't "Document object" items at all.
    > ...

    How about the following:

         1. Put the non-document object stuff into a separate IPP
            extension spec (I think that would just be the changes
            to Get-Jobs - I'll review to see if there are others)
         2. Remove the REQUIRED status from the URI-based document
            operations and publish the document object spec (with
            any other changes that come up after reviewing it)
         3. Publish a new PSI spec which adds additional requirements
            for IPP conformance in a PSI environment; this spec would
            reference all of the applicable IPP documents and provide
            "one-stop-shopping" for someone that wanted to determine
            conformance for PSI.

    No matter what way we go, I still think we'll need another round
    of document review before we go to last-call and voting.

    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 17:09:22 EDT