Mark, et al:
I have no problem with creating the combined name but I think this is better
done in the end standard that uses these names in a combined form. There may be
reasons that UPD wants a certain set of characteristics in its media names that
differ from what IPP might want, or uPnP might want, etc. If this standard
tries to be all things to all users then it will never be done. One of the
major issues raised by the IETF with IPP was it was just too big to deal with.
It is thought to be better to create a number of smaller standards that deal
with a smaller set of issues and then use those smaller standards as building
blocks. I think this is a perfect example where smaller and simpler is better.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group *
* Chair, IEEE MSC *
* *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************
"Mark VanderWiele" <markv%us.ibm.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 04/05/2001
09:58:15 AM
To: "Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc: ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com, upd%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc:
Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: UPD> Don't stop Do what is necessary
Don: If you want to create a simple unusable standard than do it. Reality
is that media description and selection only makes sense if you have all
the information presented in a logical single description (including
location).
Regards,
Mark VanderWiele
IBM, Linux Technology Center
512-838-4779, t/l 678
MARKV@IBMUS
email: markv@us.ibm.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 13:17:49 EDT