IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP>MOD Why use Job-Id instead of Job-URI for Jobs?

Re: IPP>MOD Why use Job-Id instead of Job-URI for Jobs?

Jay Martin (jkm@underscore.com)
Fri, 05 Sep 1997 19:21:23 -0400

Robert Herriot wrote:
>
> > From jkm@underscore.com Fri Sep 5 15:20:56 1997
> >
> > So again I ask: exactly why can't (or shouldn't) we standardize on
> > a Job URI syntax? (I really regret not being able to have made the
> > Redmond meeting.)
> >
>
> I don't recollect a lot of reasons given on why there should not a
> standard syntax. I think there was a general philosophy that we
> shouldn't specify the syntax of URIs and, as I recollect, the people in
> Munich had the same reaction when we discussed this topic.

I think the IPP mailing list deserves a posting citing the reasons
why URI specification is undesirable. Is anyone else out there
interested in hearing the reasons? Or am I the only one believing
that standard URI syntaxes would benefit IPP?

> Even if we did specify the syntax for a Job-URI, there is still the
> problem that its printer-URI constituent might be different from
> the printer-URI to which the job was submitted. That is also a
> problem for a gateway because a gateway assumes that a job is named by
> the printer to which the job was submitted plus a job-Id. If the
> job-printer is different, the gateway would have to "remember" that.

I believe this is a different issue that should not be confused with
the issue of standard URI syntax definitions.

...jay