Keith Moore wrote on a related thread:
> Again, I don't think it's really the layering of IPP over HTTP that
> the IESG questions; rather, it's the odd use of the http URL.
> This may make sense to the IPP folks but looks really odd to IESG.
> (I suspect it won't make sense to users, either.) And when IESG
> starts to examine the assumptions behind the design choice, it
> starts to look even stranger. But a lot of this is beside the
> point - I really have no problem supporting the choice of HTTP
> as a substrate for IPP, and IESG isn't going to second-guess that
> choice. The issue is only the use of the http: prefix. It may be
> that IESG places a larger value on user friendliness than IPP does.
User-friendliness is extrememly important to all of us.
For this reason, I remain concerned about how an "ipp:"
prefix really impacts a user.
We have heard PWG people say things like:
"You can put your IPP printer URL on your business card!"
But what does this really mean? That is, how (and when and where)
would a user enter an IPP printer URL? We have long come to
admit that it won't be applicable to mainstream browsers (one
of the top three reasons we wanted to use HTTP in the first
place, since fallen by the wayside in terms of IPP benefits).
>From what I can tell, IPP URLs are effectively hidden from
end users; instead, the end user's local printing system will
front-end any/all IPP interaction.
Is this an accurate depiction?
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm at underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------