>At least for printing, we ARE the platform vendors, so we would supply
>IPP service layers for the platforms we are interested in supporting.
One advantage I see to IPP, whether it's a new Internet protocol, a
HTTP based WEB printing protocol or a re-birth or LPR, is that it must
be STANDARD and integral to all major OS's.
I'm not sure who Randy is referring to... "we are the (printing) platform
vendors". If this refers to a scenario where every printer vendor has
to deliver unique services to the OS in order to gain basic print support,
I don't believe this is what we should be shooting for.
I think IPP should
1. Raise the level of functionality available within the network
2. Become a Standard, agreed upon by the industry
3. Be supported as a reliable component of all major OS's
>We also have most (if not all) of the major commercial computing platform
>vendors as part of the committee, so the people we have to convince would
>basically be ourselves.
I agree, and, while we have a lot of control over 1 and 2 (above) there
is really nothing the PWG can do to force 3 to occur. I think that is
why Roger deBry has asked a rather compelling question...
If we poll Microsoft, Netscape, OS/2, SUN etc. and IF there's a
consensus, is the PWG willing to follow?
I think we got on the HTTP track by wanting to address timeliness
(an item I did not list) and chance for "ubiquitous" support. If we
can maintain these goals and develop ipp//: I'm all for it. On the
other hand, if an HTTP approach is the quickest path to 1, 2 AND 3
(above), I think this is compelling.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems