IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?

Re: IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?

Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Wed, 28 May 1997 18:05:28 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Scott Isaacson: "Re: IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document"
Previous message: Roger K Debry: "IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document"
Maybe in reply to: Tom Hastings: "IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?"

I'm really not sure it makes sense to talk about mandatory States (as opposed
to mandatory Objects), but, I believe what Bill describes as

>2. if the job goes through the state, it must be reported?

is what we're striving for.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

Next message: Scott Isaacson: "Re: IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document"
Previous message: Roger K Debry: "IPP>PRO - comments on transport mapping document"
Maybe in reply to: Tom Hastings: "IPP> RE: Should 'pending' be a mandatory state or not?"