Mike (all)
The change below pushes the burden to the printer (at an increased cost
to the printer) while the Client, a software entity, has less burden.
What is wrong with
1. Discovery:
a. Clients MUST support DNS-SD and WS-Discovery
b. Printers MUST support either DNS-SD or WS-Discovery and RECOMMENED
to support both.
2. Document Formats:
a. Clients MUST support both JPEG and PWG Raster
b. Printers MUST support either JPEG or PWG Raster and RECOMMENDED
to support both.
This change to the printer requirements could mean a faster time to
market since printers are already support one of the discoveries and
documents formats but may not support both discoveries and document
formats.
As was discussed in the meeting, if either discovery or document format
change in the future, the backward compatibility burden would have to be
on the Client to deal with legacy printers. There 'may' be an issue of
Client legacy but I content that is still easier to update Clients
rather than printer firmware. In the event of a Cloud Print Service or
a Print Manager; then, I would assume the "RECOMMEDED" support of both
would be implemented.
Glen
________________________________
From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Sweet
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 6:42 PM
To: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: [IPP] IPP Everywhere and "The Great Compromise"
All,
We discussed the PWG Last Call comments received thus far at today's IPP
WG conference call. Two of the comments concerned the client
requirements to support DNS-SD for discovery and both PWG Raster and
JPEG for document formats. After over an hour of spirited debate, the
following "great compromise" was proposed to resolve the last call
comments:
1. Discovery:
a. Printers MUST support both DNS-SD and WS-Discovery (adds
WS-Discovery)
b. Clients MUST support at least one of DNS-SD and WS-Discovery
(Clients can choose amongst the two required protocols)
2. Document Formats:
a. Printers MUST support both JPEG and PWG Raster (no change)
b. Clients MUST support at least one of JPEG and PWG Raster (relaxes
conformance - previously a Client had to support both)
Please comment on the proposed changes.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20120821/6652de0c/attachment-0001.html>