Dennis Carney wrote:
> This might be an awful idea, so feel free to shoot it down with vicious
> 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 email@example.com Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 17:09:22 EDT