I think it is about time to get everyone on the same page again as well.
I think with all of the new specs we have created some confusion.
Ted Tronson
Sr. Software Engineer
iPrint Engineering
801-861-3338
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net services software
www.novell.com
>>> "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> 4/24/03 3:51:22 PM >>>
Hi,
Dennis Carney (IBM) recently observed that the IPP Document Object
spec was starting to sound a lot like "IPP/1.2". Below, Michael
Sweet (CUPS) again raises the possibility of an "IPP.1.2".
Is this a worthwhile idea?
_If_ there was at least one other editor who was MS Word literate
(Dennis Carney, Tom Hastings, ...?), I would volunteer to collaborate
on writing an "IPP/1.2" spec with new significantly higher REQUIRED
features that consisted entirely (or almost entirely) of pointers to
the definitions of operations, objects, and attributes in the over 30
documents (IETF and IEEE/ISTO) that currently specify parts of IPP.
Any takers?
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
----- Excerpt ------
Michael Sweet wrote:
>Hastings, Tom N wrote:
>> ...
>> 1. DEPRECATE the way a client can close a Job by supplying an empty
>
>Hmm, knowing that people are busy, etc., what are the chances that
>we do an IPP/1.2 specification based upon the current 1.1 docs +
>the common extensions (collections, notifications?, job-and-printer
>ops, plus the document object stuff)?
>
>This is another extension which is pointing to an IPP/1.2 version
>bump - deprecating operations is something that should be reserved
>for new versions, since otherwise you might not have at least 1
>version to provide a transition period...
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 11:17:50 EDT