IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> RE: JMP> Final IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons

Re: IPP> RE: JMP> Final IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:26:26 PDT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Roger K Debry: "Re[2]: IPP>MOD - Print by reference"
Previous message: Carl-Uno Manros: "IPP> ADM - Minutes from PWG IPP Phone Conference on June 11, 1997"
Maybe in reply to: Caruso,Angelo: "IPP> RE: JMP> Final IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons"

I haven't been following this discussion carefully, but
I think there's a problem with a protocol standard attempts
to dictate what must or must not be 'implemented'. If you
just talk about what has to be sent in order to achieve
interoperability, then you'll get into less of these kinds
of arguments.

IF you want to tell clients about the status of the job,
THEN send the following job-state-reasons.

Conformance then becomes a non-issue.

-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter

Next message: Roger K Debry: "Re[2]: IPP>MOD - Print by reference"
Previous message: Carl-Uno Manros: "IPP> ADM - Minutes from PWG IPP Phone Conference on June 11, 1997"
Maybe in reply to: Caruso,Angelo: "IPP> RE: JMP> Final IPP/JMP job-state and job-state-reasons"