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: Michael Sweet (mike@easysw.com)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 08:52:25 EDT

  • Next message: Carl: "IPP> FW: Simple Times announcement"

    Dennis Carney wrote:
    > ...
    > In short, what is our goal for IPP/1.2?
    > ...

    In the realm of the document object extension, there are new
    conformance requirements such as the new Close-Job operation,
    additional document-format-xyz attributes that must be supported,
    Print-URI and Send-URI required, etc.

    Given that several other standards are being based upon the pending
    document object (and other approved) specs, it might make sense to
    bump the IPP version and require conformance to IPP/1.2 instead of
    IPP/1.1 + these other N specs to make it clear what the requirements
    are and improve interoperability.

    As it is, the REQUIRED operations in the document object spec
    (comments coming soon, promise!) and several other things which
    sound more like a new IPP version than a simple extension will
    yield a NO vote from my company...

    -- 
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products           mike at easysw dot com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 08:53:12 EDT