IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standa

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standa

Re: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 14:06:01 EDT

  • Next message: Carl: "RE: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?"

    Good goal in my estimation, and good observation that we'd need committed
    editors etc. .. yet, in my mind, the key questions... will we have
    critical mass. We'll need to address this fairly early in the discussion
    (ex. who expects they will implement, interop etc.).
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Ted Tronson" <TTRONSON@novell.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    04/28/2003 09:16 AM
     
            To: <ipp@pwg.org>
            cc:
            Subject: Re: IPP> Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?

    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 - 14:07:48 EDT