Subject: IPP> xml etc.

From: Paul Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:35:43 -0800

[excuse the delay]

2 MS people will attend Hawaii meeting (me and Josh cohen)

We will attempt to have a preminary document available before the next
teleconf. We will have a fuller document available before Hawaii.

The consensus within MS was that, since there is already a separation
between model/semantics and protocol, the remapping should be relatively
painless.

Specific technical points:-

XML parser: There should be no problem in making a parser in < 50k. We have
both java and c code that we might be able to share with people. A subset is
possible - it looks like the final XML spec will allow for that.

Application/ipp: The immediate feeling was that instead of application/ipp
we would use multi-part. This was after 10 seconds of detailed analysis of
the issue :-). The PDL would be carried as a separate opaque BLOB as it is
today.

POST vs other Methods: The other MS folks were surprised about the
objection. They said that they thought all current servers were capable of
extra methods (certainly NS and Apache). They had not heard the objection
from Novell in the DAV group so they had assumed that the NW web server was
equally capable.

Why use non_POST: Firewalls was the main issue - it gives good granularity
for an admin (I explained the group's feeling about firewall debates). There
are other reasons for it which we did not have time to cover. We will
present the reasons for and against both the XML and different method usage
in Hawaii.

Hope this all helps

Paul Moore

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:19:28 -0800

> possible - it looks like the final XML spec will allow for that.

I cannot find such language in the December 8 1997 version. Can you
tell us more about the rules for subsets.

What subset are you proposing?  It seems to me that most of XML could
be eliminated for IPP, e.g. parameter entities and (normal) entities 
except for &lt and &amp.  Even DTD's are unnecessary if a printer hard
codes the single DTD that it supports. Once all of this is tossed out,
there isn't much left to parse.

> from Novell in the DAV group so they had assumed that the NW web server was

Unfortunately, the Sun Web server doesn't support extension of methods.

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:38:25 PST

>possible - it looks like the final XML spec will allow for that.

Paul,

Here is my take on the paragraph above:

1) The current W3C XML proposal does not contain a way to define subsets.

2) The voting on the XML proposal closes today. The release date as an
   official W3C spec will depend on the votes and comments received from
   W3C members.

3) If W3C members have commented that they want to get a way of defining
   subsets in XML, the specs need to be enhanced and the ratification
   of it will be delayed for at least a few months.

So, either the XML specs will go ahead as is without the subset feature,
or you will not have an XML spec to reference until later.

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]