> All in all, I think there is more than meets the eye to introduce a new
> scheme, in particular one that really is an alias for another scheme, which
> as far as I know, is a new kind of animal in the IETF garden of Eden.
I agree. While the notion of mapping "ipp:" to "http://blah:nnn"
sounds interesting, are we breaking too much ground here?
It's the end-user experience I worry about. It's ok to say
that "clients and servers will 'do the right thing'", but
we also say that we'd like to put our IPP printer addresses
on our business cards, etc.
Sounds like we might be heading for a bit of a crash
with regarding to user expectations.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------