Subject: IPP> application/ipp vs. application/print-job

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 19:56:50 -0400

Larry wrote:

 >I'm dissatisfied with "application/ipp" as the name for the
 >Internet media type registration, because it's somewhat
 >redundant (i = internet in an internet protocol) and misdirected
 >(the content is not a 'protocol', it's a description of a
 >print job used in one protocol but useful possibly in others).

 >So I suggest renaming it: application/print-job. That is,
 >an 'application/print-job' is a description of a job that the
 >sender wants the recipient to print.

Then I'd just call it "application/print".

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

---

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 17:12:14 -0700

The label "application/ipp" was meant to denote that this entity
body was to be handled by an IPP application. Which is the reason
for using the media type "application" and the subtype "ipp". 
Whether or not we are using the MIME type according to the strict
definition for using a particular media type may be in question,
but the rationale is sound and it just seemed like a good fit;
i.e., we wanted this entity type to be processed by an "application"
that knows about "ipp".

Randy