Hi Bill,
Good questions.
Since 5100.4 is Obsolete (and not merely Deprecated) it is no longer listed
in the Published Standards section. 5100.6 blurb (and Abstract) should
clearly state that it supersedes 5100.4 and that 5100.4 is no longer
supported.
5100.10 is indeed superseded by 5100.12. Again the 5100.12 blurb (and
Abstract) should clearly state that it supersedes 5100.10. IMO,5100.10 is
Obsolete and should be withdrawn from the Published Standards section.
Note - It's also true that 5100.12 (our only full PWG Standard) will
definitely
need to be revised (and moved back down to Candidate Standard) to reflect
corrections and attribute transitions among IPP PPX, IPP EPX, and IPP Job
Extensions (among others) - that looks like a 2020 calendar year activity
to me. I suggest that we should NOT fold additional later IPP standards
into that 5100.12 update (because that would break compatibility).
All - WDYT?
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:54 PM wamwagner--- via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
> Looking through the IPP Published Work list on the PWG website, I noticed
> that 5100.4 and 5100.10 are not listed. 5100.4 (Override Attributes for
> Documents and Pages) is well marked as obsolete on the FTP site. 5100.10
> (Internet Printing Protocol Version 2.0) is not.
>>>> 1. 5100.6 (Page Overrides) apparently obsoletes 5100.4 . It is not
> immediately clear whether Document Overrides are still supported.
> 2. The relationship between 5100.10 and 5100.12 (IPP Version 2.0, 2.1,
> and 2.2) does not appear to be spelled out. One would expect that .12
> supersedes .10 . Is this correct? If so, should this not be indicated
> somewhere?
>> Thanks
>> Bill Wagner
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20190621/fd4eaeab/attachment.html>