If any Bake-Off participant is having trouble running the scripts, please
give me a call at : (310) 333-6413.
They should only take about 10-15 minutes to run. I'll help you interpret
the results over the phone, if you wish.
Thanks,
Tom
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Moore [mailto:paulmo@microsoft.com]
>Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 11:23
>To: 'Harry Lewis'; ipp@pwg.org
>Cc: stuart.rowley@kyocera.com; HPARRA@novell.com
>Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri
>
>
>Fixing bugs is certainly acceptable (and probably inevitable).
>
>I am not sure whether the current NLO debate falls into the
>'bug' category
>or a 'we could have done it better if had thought about it
>more' category.
>These are not acceptable in the terms of the GA vote.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 11:11 AM
>To: ipp@pwg.org
>Cc: stuart.rowley@kyocera.com; HPARRA@novell.com; Paul Moore
>Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri
>
>
>I thought the direction established between Monterey and
>Savannah was to
>freeze
>the June 30 draft to any additional "new function" which was under
>consideration (IPP scheme, Security etc). I do not believe
>clarification was
>banned, otherwise, why did we Inteop test?
>
>The motion - as recorded in the PWG Plenary (and my own)
>minutes clearly
>references "that we plan to update the June 30 drafts with corrections
>resulting from the Bake-off (and other experience)..." There
>was nothing in
>the
>"vote" that said we could not or would not address
>deficiencies in our own
>draft, in fact, I definitely understood this as the goal! Hugo clearly
>reminded
>us, in Savannah, that topics already on the "issues list" were
>(potentially)
>as
>significant as topics discovered at the bakeoff.
>
>The decision how far to "go" with an implementation or when to
>"ship" is an
>individual one and we have all been very frustrated by the
>desire to "make
>good" on our IPP efforts. I think most PWG members are
>sensitive to the fact
>that we all ware similar shoes at some point... which fosters
>a cooperative
>demeanor worth preserving. I would like to continue to seek clean-cut
>resolution to the NL/NLO problems which have been on the table
>for 5 months
>while stepping on as few toes as possible.
>
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>harryl@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
>paulmo@microsoft.com on 11/06/98 11:38:29 AM
>Please respond to paulmo@microsoft.com
>To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@ibmus, ipp@pwg.org, HPARRA@novell.com
>cc: stuart.rowley@kyocera.com
>Subject: RE: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri
>
>
>Hindsight is a wonderful thing (BTW it was Savanahh not
>Monterey where we
>finally really voted on the spec). We all had a vote, including Novell.
>Several people said - whoa, we havent tested localization, we
>havent tested
>security. Despite that the vote was unanimous (one abstention
>that was later
>change to yes). People have taken product decisions based on that vote.
>
>What are you proposing - that the formally defined and agreed
>PWG voting
>process is not really binding and that we can all change our
>mind later. It
>may or may not have been a good result - but it was the result.
>
>We could have another vote undoing the previous one. Why not put that
>forward as a motion in Tuscon.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA@novell.com]
>Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 10:09 AM
>To: ipp@pwg.org; harryl@us.ibm.com
>Cc: stuart.rowley@kyocera.com
>Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri
>
>
>I second what Harry and Stuart wrote. In retrospect, I can't
>believe the
>group voted to upheld the June 30th spec before we carried out
>any formal
>interoperability testing of the spec. Why did the PWG gave
>its stamp of
>approval without formal proof that two independently-developed
>implementations interoperated in all areas. I believe, the
>hours and hours
>of discussion trying to clarify what the spec means by
>language override
>disqualifies our implementations as "independent". If,
>despite our poor
>decision in Monterrey, we still want to stick with the June
>30th spec, so be
>it; but we should make formal interoperability testing part of the PWG
>process so history doesn't repeat itself.
>
>-Hugo
>
>>>> Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> 11/06/98 10:39AM >>>
>Stuart, you echo my sentiments exactly. I have tried, on the
>wire and in the
>calls to bring the focus back to Carl's original (and much simpler)
>observations. (See
>http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/1490.html). I think the
>problem is that some implementations are already using some of the
>(difficult
>to understand) "features" in striving for conformance to the June 30
>drafts.
>It's just unfortunate that we were not able to focus sooner on
>the problem
>which was surfaced in May. I believe Tom tried to bend Carl's
>proposal into
>the
>reality of the situation... looking for a compromise solution.
>I agree.. it
>looks that much more complicated in this context.
>
>It is fairly well agreed there is not much we can do with
>respect to Servers
>(Printers?), at this point but some hope may still lay in the
>Clients. If we
>can restrict client behavior (say, to always use
>textWithLanguage) it might
>govern server response (to, similarly, always use textWithLanguage)...
>nearly
>achieving Carl's proposal. But, some Servers already have
>decided to make
>use
>of textWithoutLanguage in situations where Languages on the request and
>response are identical (a common sense implementation given
>the absence of a
>rule like Carl was proposing... "always use textWithLanguage").
>
>So, we feel pretty boxed in. I agree, however, any reasoning
>discussed on
>the
>call should be echoed on the DL for all to understand.
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>harryl@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
>owner-ipp@pwg.org on 11/05/98 10:07:44 PM
>Please respond to owner-ipp@pwg.org
>To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com, ipp@pwg.org
>cc:
>Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Tentative decision on natural language overri
>
>
>Apparently the participants in the telecon and those "voting" on the
>mailing list are completely different groups of individuals!
>Except for Bob
>Herriott, no one expressed any con arguments for NLO 4 of 4. I
>only saw yes
>"votes" (about 10 or 15 of them). So why the telcon decision
>of No. There
>is not even any reasons given why this decision was reached.
>Where is the
>discussion on the mailing list?
>
>This type of mass back on forth makes me wonder how many really have a
>clear understanding of these NLO issues (not that I do).
>Nearly everyone
>has expressed that the current mechanisms are overkill and very hard to
>understand.
>
>I think the only really clearly articulated discussion of this on the
>mailing list has been Carl Kugler's emails. On Oct 9 Carl sent the
>following email titled IPP> Re: MOD OLD NEW Issue:
>Contradictory NLO req.
>This email suggests a very clear and to me appropriate
>solution. I never
>saw on the list anyone state why not to accept Carl's
>proposal. After this
>email, we received the issue broken into several inter-related
>issues by
>Tom (which I read over and over and over, trying to understand).
>
>I would now challenge those in the telecon who decided to keep
>name/text
>withoutLanguage to re-read Carl's email (below) and state in
>what ways his
>proposal is flawed. Until someone can adequately shoot down this clear
>proposal of Carl's, then his proposal is what I am in favor of.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Stuart
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>Stuart Rowley Kyocera Technology Development, Inc
>
>