RE: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI
Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com> Wed, 15 July 1998 18:19 UTC
Delivery-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:19:28 -0400
Return-Path: ipp-owner@pwg.org
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1])
by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id OAA21662
for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:19:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lists.underscore.com (uscore-1.mv.com [199.125.85.30])
by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id OAA16352
for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com
(8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA00034 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>;
Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:15:17 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists.underscore.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
OAA29455 for ipp-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:13:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <CB6657D3A5E0D111A97700805FFE6587BF6E8E@red-msg-51.dns.microsoft.com>
From: Paul Moore <paulmo@microsoft.com>
To: "'Jay Martin'" <jkm@underscore.com>
Cc: "'ipp@pwg.org'" <ipp@pwg.org>
Subject: RE: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:13:01 -0700
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2328.0)
Sender: owner-ipp@pwg.org
You misunderstand my suggestion. I mean that printto: is like mailto: - it loads a client and passes in the destination address. It has nothing to do with the protocol that gets used to send the print. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 10:40 AM > To: Paul Moore > Cc: 'ipp@pwg.org' > Subject: Re: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI > > Paul, > > > (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 -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI Paul Moore
- Re: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI Jay Martin
- RE: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI Paul Moore
- RE: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI Bennett, Joel H
- RE: IPP> ipp: / http: in the UI Harry Lewis