IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> HTTP vs. HTTP-lite
Re: IPP> HTTP vs. HTTP-lite
Randy Turner (
rturner@sharplabs.com)
Mon, 06 Jan 1997 14:51:31 -0800
Babak Jahromi wrote:
>
> I doubt there is a golden document somewhere that specifies how the
> browsers exactly deal with the all caches and all flavors of proxy
> servers around. It works like everything else in Internet community:
> loose consensus and running code. Why does IPP have to be special? If
> you want to resolve every caching and proxying scenario before releasing
> IPP, you will never manage to do it.
>
You can't just gloss over all of the issues with regards to
printing over HTTP by using the "standard interfaces". Those
standard interfaces were not designed to transport print jobs,
but were designed around the transient nature and assumptions
that can be made regarding the consumption of data by interactive
web browsers; you've got some very basic design philosophies with
HTTP and proxy/caching algorithms that just might not jive with
print jobs.
A good example of this is how the search engines indexes data,
as stated by Keith below:
If you want to deploy something and let the user community work
out all the details, I think this would be the wrong way to go.
Randy
Keith Moore wrote:
> >1. If you use full HTTP to define IPP, you have to go through every
> >feature of HTTP and specify how it interacts with printing, just to
> >make sure it doesn't cause any problems. You have to specify how
> >printers and print clients interact with web cache servers, proxy
> >servers, and web browsers. You should probably also define how to
> >keep Lycos, AltaVista, etc. from indexing your printer.
> >
> >
--
Randy Turner
Network Architect
Sharp Laboratories of America
rturner@sharplabs.com