> I can appreciate the need for compromise, given your earlier message, but
> I'm not sure I completely understand the difference between your
> compromise, and our "ipp:" URL usage model that we sent out to you. It
> looks like you're suggesting using the HTTP header part of our proposal,
> and trying to use "ipp:" URLs within the application/ipp
> part where appropriate, which is basically what our usage model stated.
>> Could you do a "diff" on our document and your compromise for the DL?
Basically, the difference is that in the compromise proposal,
the ipp: stuff never appears at the HTTP layer. So it's not
going to break any of the proxies or client APIs or servers.
Keith