> (Actually I quite like 'printto:' - what do others think).
Glad you brought this up. If the final resolution of this whole
scheme issue results in something *other* than "http:", then
I'd prefer Keith's suggestion of "print:" as a scheme as opposed
to your "printto:", since the "to" suffix is both unnecessary
and counter-intuitive (given that the PDU can very well contain
requests that are not job submissions).
> Saying that IPP lets me know that its a printer is an excuse for bad design.
> Any UI that expects people to differentiate by hovering over the link and
> looking at the status bar is broken.
Perhaps you're right that the UI should *not* expect this
"hovering" behavior, but nonetheless it is quite prevalent
from what I've experienced. That is, I don't think we should
discount the frequency and value of hovering as part of a
positive user experience.
> Nobody is going to put printer URLs on their business cards.
Do you really believe this? I mean, an aweful lot of IPP
proponents (in the PWG) clearly believe that one of the greatest
values of IPP is its use as a fax-alike mechanism. I honestly
don't think such a capability is nearly as powerful a potential
as some of these people seem to believe, but there will be some
who actually implement this, IMHO.
...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 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------