Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!SMITHKLINE.COM!wood%lavc3.dnet
From: wood%lavc3.dnet@SMITHKLINE.COM (Bill Wood, SKB Pharmaceuticals R&D, 215-270-5163)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: printing at X terminals
Message-ID: <9007160320.AA01981@smithkline.com>
Date: 16 Jul 90 03:20:01 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 35

>> I suppose it is easier if some OTHER standards committee has to
>> figure out the problem but just who would that be?

>Primo: a standard already exists.  It's called lpr.

lpr is an operating-system-specific standard.  That's no standard at all.

>Secundo: even so, that's no excuse for making X handle something
>  inappropriate to it.

Printing protocol is entirely appropriate to X - X provides multiple
transport layers, plus built-in security mechanisms.  Its a natural for
providing the pipeline to a local printer.

>> I vote local printing is a terminal issue and X is standardizing the
>> software interface to terminals.

Obvious!  Just ask anyone who can't print anymore because of their fancy new
X terminal.

>X is standardizing the software interface to display/keyboard/mouse
>sets, not to printers.  If I happen to have a disk attached to my X
>box, is that a reason to make the X protocol also support disk access?
>Really now.

Disk I/O is not a terminal issue.  Local printing is.

What if you had LEDs on your X keyboard?  Should
X be extended to send messages to the LEDs?  Should X be extended to accept
input from a data tablet?  YES!  Allow X to print too!


Bill             wood@smithkline.com

Please CC replies to me, I'm not on the xpert mailing list.