>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu]
>>> MIME type would seem to provide a most adequate filtering hook for IPP
>> and other protocols which also wish to ride on http.
>>Filtering is not the issue with ipp: vs. http:.
>>The problem with using http: for printers is that it hides the fact
>that the resource is a printer. Users then have to keep track of
>that information separately, while user agents (web clients etc.)
>are unable to take advantage of the fact that the resource is a
>printer to improve their user interfaces.
I'm outside your group, strictly speaking, but I was checking this out
because I will be involved in testing the software that XEROX may eventually
develop for IPP. I couldn't help but weigh in agreeing with Keith on this
one.
Even on existing web pages (never mind on my business cards) users DO see
URL's, and they (we) do make choices based on them. For instance, when I
point at a link that says "MORE HELP" and the status window of my browser
says mailto:support at company.com I don't click, because I do NOT want to
waste my time, I'm looking for "more help" not an unresponsive support team.
Likewise, I would want to see ipp://support.microsoft.com so that I would
know that there's no point in clicking unless I've got a complaint/help
document I want to send them!
Savvy users look for FTP:// instead of HTTP:// when they are trying to
upload/download files, because it's faster and easier than http:// (if only
because ftp:// calls my special ftp client, just the way you will eventually
want ipp:// to load your
ipp client?)
Web users are used to the idea that http:// is a "viewable" resource.
something they want to LOOK at. They don't want to do a search for "color
pictures" and get links to http:// sites which are actually printers where
they can "print color pictures."
In HIS hands,
Joel H. Bennett
mailto:Joel at soon.comhttp://JBennett.home.ml.org