You ask a question that I have wondered about too. I think that
the attribute for the other URI is there "just in case" some
client needs it. But we aren't sure that any client will ever need it.
Perhaps our reasoning should instead be: "leave it out until we find a
problem needing this solution". In that case, we don't need either
printer-alt-uri or printer-uri-supported. Printer-uri suffices.
Bob Herriot
> From masinter at parc.xerox.com Tue Jan 6 18:10:25 1998
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:11:22 PST
> From: Larry Masinter <masinter at parc.xerox.com>
> Organization: Xerox PARC
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Robert Herriot <Robert.Herriot at Eng>
> CC: cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com, ipp at pwg.org, hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com,
>manchala at cp10.es.xerox.com, xriley at cp10.es.xerox.com> Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - Outside the box resolution for the two URIs
> issue
> References: <199801070010.QAA13269 at woden.eng.sun.com>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Lines: 9
>> You know, I still haven't understood why you need more than one
> URI. A printer is a resource. The URI is a resource identifier.
> A URL is a resource locator, and determines the access method
> by the scheme. So why do you need a resource to know about other
> access methods for the same resource?
>> Larry
> --
>http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter>