this is not an Informational RFC thing - either the client code can
depend on the jobid being derivable from the URL or it cannot. There is
no halfway house.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: papowell at astart.com [SMTP:papowell at astart.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 1997 12:51 PM
> To: ipp at pwg.org; Paul Moore; rdebry at us.ibm.com> Subject: RE: IPP>MOD Why use Job-Id instead of Job-URI for Jobs?
>> One of the ways that problems such as format for URI's for printing
> can be handled is to issue an 'Informational' RFC that describes
> a 'Best Practices' type of condition.
>> I do not see a conflict with the IPP RFC in doing this. It would,
> in fact, probably be a good way to handle the issues of 'particular
> URI formats for portability'.
>> Also, an informational RFC and 'Best Practices' is not binding...
> just gentle hints.
>> Patrick Powell
>> > From ipp-owner at pwg.org Fri Sep 5 11:39:50 1997
> > From: Paul Moore <paulmo at microsoft.com>
> > To: "'Roger K Debry'" <rdebry at us.ibm.com>, ipp at pwg.org> > Subject: RE: IPP>MOD Why use Job-Id instead of Job-URI for Jobs?
> > Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:03:53 -0700
> >
> > We discussed this at the august meeting. You cannot extract the
> jobid
> > from the job-URI. Remember a 'particluar implmentation' has no
> meaning
> > for things visible in a wire protocol. There is both the client and
> the
> > server - if the url is to be in a specifc format then both sides
> must
> > agree to this. The only way that this would work is if we mandated
> the
> > url format (which we discussed doing and voted against)
Our website uses cookies on your device to give you the best user experience. By using our website, you agree to the placement of these cookies. To learn more, read our privacy policy. Read Privacy Policy