Ira,
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Ira McDonald via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> I agree with your rationale that Document Object should be v1.1 (no new content).
>> For Job Extensions (because of adding three operations, especially), I think and
> the folks yesterday on IPP WG call agreed that v2.0 was preferable.
I'm in the process of posting JOBEXT 2.0 now; will summarize the conformance changes from 1.0...
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>
>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
>>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:57 AM Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp at pwg.org <mailto:ipp at pwg.org>> wrote:
> All,
>> In reviewing the minutes from yesterday's IPP concall I saw the following comments regarding the IPP Document Object v1.1 errata update:
>> • Prototyping going on
>> I believe this is actually complete in ippserver, and there are of course a LOT of IPP (PDF) printers with document object support already, so I think any prototyping requirement has been met. (not that there is one for an errata update)
>> • Need to add "Deprecated" and "Obsolete" definitions
>> These will be included in the next (stable) update, per our prior discussions.
>> • Will be PWG Call for Objections because it is a 1.1 (errata update) but should it be a 2.0?
>> Given that there is NOTHING NEW in this spec, just a general cleanup and a relaxation of the multiple document support requirement, I see no reason to make this 2.0. Any 1.0 compliant implementation is also 1.1 compliant.
>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org <mailto:ipp at pwg.org>
>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>
> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20190315/a3aef96b/attachment.html>