> However, by the same token, assigning the name "print-job" is probably
> too generic. It is unlikely that the IPP approach for printing over
> HTTP (or any other quasi-MIME-encoded mechanism) will be (or is) the
> only one of its kind in the internet.
Some people say "the only good thing about standards is there
are so many of them to choose from". However, the outcome
of the IPP working group is supposed to be _the_ proposed
standard for printing in the Internet. If you just want
to do something without making it the standard, then you
don't need a standards group where you're forced to listen
to fools like me.
> Assuming that "print-job" is reasonable for other print-like
> mechanisms (such as fax) is not really clear, is it?
I would assume that "print-job" was a good name for
what it is that you're sending in submitting a job.
Maybe you want some more general way to marshall and
unmarshall an attribute value list, but then there
are lots of those, including application/directory
and multipart/form-data. Then you just need a schema
and a version of the scheme. Right?
Larry
-- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter