IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>PRO: sorry, binary is better (?)

Re: IPP>PRO: sorry, binary is better (?)

Sylvan Butler (SBUTLER@hpbs2024.boi.hp.com)
Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:00:01 -0700

>> That is what I was thinking on Tuesday 6/17, but actually doing
>> something with it and covering all the possibilities with ASCII seems
>> noticably more complex to implement and to test, and for no apparent
>> benefit.
>
>There are many of us (most of us??) who do not believe the statement
>that "ASCII seems noticably more complex to implement and to test".

When there is more code containing more loops and more conditionals
the testing of that code is more complex.

>Furthermore, we do not believe the statement of "for no apparent
>benefit".

Let's discuss these benefits. I suggest a thread with "benefits of
ASCII" in the subject line, but this thread will probably suffice.

>Again I must ask: what are we doing in IPP that is fundamentally
>different than other web-oriented transactions utilizing HTTP? Others

HTTP is used to transfer a lot of binary material (primarily,
according to the stats on a small proxy cache I run). We are
primarily binary material.

>have not found a need to degenerate to binary encodings, so why should

"degenerate"? What is the term for that rhetorical technique...

>Staying in a text-only domain leverages the many text-based development
>tools prevalent in today's web-centric environments that span the

Good. I like that benefit. I can see how it might be important.

Will those tools deal with precise delimiters in specific
quantities, combined with length-preceded chunks of binary data
which may contain various delimiters (as defined by 6/17)? And
those same tools are unable to deal with binary encodings?

sdb

| Sylvan Butler | sbutler@boi.hp.com | AreaCode 208 Phone/TelNet 396-2282 |