PostScript vs. PCL3 vs PCL6

[swsnyder]

I've got a networked HP Color LaserJet CP4025 printer which is connected
to a RHEL v5.5 server.  RHEL/CUPS doesn't support this printer out of
the box, so I installed HP's open source package, HPLIP v3.10.5.

When configuring the CP4025 in RHEL CUPS my only option was the
PostScript driver.  I can print correctly from CUPS on the server.

I exported the printer via Samba, and I can successfully print from
Windows boxes.  Installing HP's current CP4025 drivers on Windows I was
only offered the option of PCL6.

I configured local printers on Fedora 12 & 13 systems, pointing them to
the CUPS server on the RHEL server.  I selected the printer model from
the system-config-printer tool and was only given the option of PCL3.

To sum up:

RHEL Server:	CUPS(PS) --> CP4025

Windows:	driver(PCL6) --> Samba --> CUPS --> CP4025

Fedora{12,13}:	driver(PCL3) --> IPP --> CUPS --> CP4025

FWIW, RHEL is running CUPS v1.3.7 and the Fedora machines are running CUPS v1.4.2 and 1.4.3.

On initial testing, it all seems to work.  What nags at me, though, are
the 3 different methods of page description.  Am I wrong to think that
mixing PostScript, PCL3 and PCL6 is a problem waiting to happen?

Thanks.