Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Tue, 14 July 1998 19:09 UTC

Delivery-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:09:10 -0400
Message-Id: <199807141900.PAA10692@spot.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: don@lexmark.com
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Rich Gray <Richg@Digital-Controls.Com>, Ipp@pwg.org, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: IPP Scheme
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:46:55 EDT." <199807141659.AA02191@interlock2.lexmark.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:00:37 -0400
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org

> >The problem with using http: for printers is that it hides the fact
> >that the resource is a printer.
> 
> ... and the problem with "ipp:" is that it hides the fact that
> the protocol is really HTTP!!!

I guess I consider it more important for the URL to describe the
end resource that it's providing, than for it to describe the
underlying protocol(s).  We don't have tcp: or ip: URLs; we have 
URLs for higher level services.  Some URL schemes don't imply a 
particular protocol.  However, for every URL scheme that uses the 
name of a protocol, the URL names the highest layer protocol 
on the stack, rather than some lower layer.

Keith