At 06:46 PM 12/17/96 PST, Babak Jahromi wrote:
>>>>if I recall correctly, one of our user requirements was that we would
>>like to avoid having a separate print driver to install for every new
network
>>printer that a user may want to use. Compare this to fax today - you do
>>not expect the user to download a new piece of software for every new
>>fax address he/she wants to use. My hope would be that the "IPP print
driver"
>>is a generic piece of software, which can be used for many different
printers
>>in combination with a relatively short list of capabilities and options
for a
>>particular printer. This list could be stored locally or downloaded every
>>time.
>>Am I too optimistic here?
>>"Generic" is synonym to "poor feature list". Why do we want to force
>people who have invested in full feature printers to treat them like
>monochrome fax machines? If people like to use Internet Printing as a
>fax service, then the server can install the printer with a minimal
>driver, and we can arrage that all Internet clients would have that
>minimal driver. But beyond that, the driver would have to be downloaded
>from the server. And the good thing is that the driver does not have to
>know anything about the new protocol. i.e. no change is needed in
>today's drivers.
>>Babak
>
OK. I can probably live with having at least a simple generic IPP driver
that does not require explicit download in advance, with downloading and
automatic installation in other cases. Do we have any expectations about
the time needed to download a print driver over HTTP, using say in worst
case a 14.4 modem? Are there agreed naming conventions for drivers, so
that the clients can identify if they already have the right driver
installed, or do we need to come up with a driver naming scheme?
Carl-Uno