Subject: IPP> RE: MOD - Push back on simplifying Print operation response

From: "Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 08:04:41 MST

Sorry for the multitude of embeds, but this thread touches on something
that has been bothering me about IPP. I'm not judging which is the right
or wrong approach, but either we're building IPP for the scenario where
standard desktop applications (i.e. Babak's response), run on a
traditional desktop OS but the WEB underlies communications and print
submission *OR* we're building IPP for the NC (thin-client) world where
the WEB *IS* the OS and applications or applets, which have been modified
to run in this environment,  now use print services based on IPP.

Or both, inevitably staged, based on Microsoft's NT5.0 direction.

Where is the real focus of IPP?

>Isn't what you call "print submission GUI" the everyday applications
>people use? like Word, Excel, Corel, Quicken. etc. etc.?
>
>So I wouldn't plan on changing any of it!
>
>Babak
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>>Sent:	Thursday, February 20, 1997 3:27 PM
>>To:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>>Subject:	Re: IPP> MOD - Push back on simplifying Print operation response
>>
>>
>>>
>>> My concern is that either:
>>>
>>> 1. User friendly implmentations will make additional protocol calls
>>> to get job and printer status.  That means that each Print operation
>>> will require three calls, not one.  If we layer on HTTP that means
>>> a new session startup/teardown for each of the three calls.
>>
>>My assumption is that the GUI from which the Print submission is made is
>>a different process from the one showing status in most cases.  In such an
>>environment, the Print submission GUI would probably not inform the
>>job status GUI about the changes. The primary issue is whether a print
>>submission GUI (or command) would inform the user of the special case
>>you site below where the printer is stopped and needs attention before it
>>will resume printing.

---

From: Babak Jahromi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:35:12 -0800

Well, I think the thins client (NC) platform might be a great dream, but
I doubt any IPP member would want to spend time desinging ONLY for a
platform that has currently almost zero market share. 

Ideally we would like to cover both, without making any sacrifice for
the %99 of the cases, namely the traditional desktop OS.

Babak

>From:	Harry Lewis <[email-masked]> [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Friday, February 21, 1997 7:05 AM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	IPP> RE: MOD - Push back on simplifying Print operation response
>