From: Ira McDonald (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2008 - 22:01:25 EDT
Agreed - I suggested that people should vote in that spreadsheet
with "A-2.0", "B-2.2", etc., so we could see what was happening.
Please note that the IPP WG concluded at the recent face-to-face
(see minutes posted today) that there should be THREE specs,
so that prototyping, last call, and so on could proceed more
quickly (since IPP/2.0 as you proposed it is a small increment
over IPP/1.1 base).
I think we should break this spreadsheet into THREE (because
the grouping of IPP operations in existing specs is completely
obscured by the current flat numeric operations list).
Try opening Ted's RTF (it opened fine for me in MS Word 2003)
and just filling in a blank column.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Michael R Sweet <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Ira McDonald wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Ted - I converted the file you just sent me to PDF and posted both
> > on the PWG FTP site in the directory:
> > ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/ippv2-docs/
> > in the files:
> > IPP-OPTIONAL-OPS-PRIORITY-NOVELL.pdf
> > IPP-OPTIONAL-OPS-PRIORITY-NOVELL.rtf
> > All - please send ALL your comments DIRECTLY to the IPP WG
> > list to avoid lost information. An open standards process and a
> > reliable mail archive are important.
> If we are going to do the tiered 2.0/2.1/2.2 conformance levels, it
> would be useful to see which level Novell is focused on...
> BTW, I am unable to open the IPP-OPTIONAL-OPS-PRIORITY.doc file.
> Michael R Sweet Senior Printing System Engineer
-- Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Blue Roof Music/High North Inc email: email@example.com winter: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 summer: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2008 - 22:01:32 EDT