I agree with you. It is better to remove an incomplete feature
and do it correctly later, than to leave in a mistake.
My original email (below) suggested that removing the feature
might be the best option.
Bob Herriot
> From jkm at underscore.com Thu Oct 16 19:01:46 1997
>> I think it is way too late to get notification down *right* for
> IPP v1.0, and therefore it should be removed altogether for v1.0
> and put high on the list for v1.1 (or whatever we call the "next"
> version of IPP).
>> ...jay
>>> Robert Herriot wrote:
> >
> > I just noticed that the IPP model document now has an Event Notification
> > Content attribute whose format is US-ASCII even though it is intended
> > for machine consumption.
> >
> > I am concerned about freezing this format into the standard because
> > I think that it is a mistake.
> >
> > I suggest that the format of this message should be in the IPP protocol
> > format so that the notification content can represent whatever the
> > protocol can represent. Text in different languages is one thing
> > that comes to mind.
> >
> > This means that for HTTP, the content would go as an application/ipp
> > entity in an HTTP request and we need a new IPP operation called "notify".
> >
> > For email, it could go as a Multipart/alternative with one part
> > text/plain whose content is specified but whose format is unspecified
> > and with another part which is application/ipp. Alternatively, we
> > could have two variants of email, one for human consumption and one
> > for machine consumption.
> >
> > Although we may be too late in the process to solve this problem as I
> > have suggested, it is not too late to remove the specification of the
> > Event Notification Content so that we don't freeze a mistake.
> >
> > Bob Herriot
>