>2) Shouldn't we propose a syntax for the representation of ordered lists as
>part of the general SLP template syntax? It seems like a hack to invent a
>new syntax for ordered lists just for the sake of the printer template.
>Please note that I am not trying to intentionally delay progress on the
>printer template, but it just seems like ordered list capability is pretty
>fundamental and that printers are not the only networked services that might
>benefit from ordered list attributes. My apologies if this has already been
>discussed on the SLP mail list (of which I am not a member).
>
The problem is that ordered lists are not supported by directory services
in general. LDAP does not have them. Since SLP is attempting to be
compatible with LDAP, SLP does not have them either.
If applications seem to feel that ordered multivalued attributes are
important for directory services, then perhaps a proposal for an
LDAP extension or addition is in order.
jak