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

From: [email-masked] (Robert Herriot)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 15:50:52 -0700

> From [email-masked] Fri Sep  5 15:20:56 1997
> 
> > But Microsoft clients cannot assume that all IPP servers will be
> > Microsoft servers. Thus the client has no sure way to parse the
> > Job-URI.
> 
> 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.

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.

---

From: Jay Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 19:21:23 -0400

> 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?

> 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