this is not an Informational RFC thing - either the client code can
depend on the jobid being derivable from the URL or it cannot. There is
no halfway house.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: papowell at astart.com [SMTP:papowell at astart.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 1997 12:51 PM
> To: ipp at pwg.org; Paul Moore; rdebry at us.ibm.com> Subject: RE: IPP>MOD Why use Job-Id instead of Job-URI for Jobs?
>> One of the ways that problems such as format for URI's for printing
> can be handled is to issue an 'Informational' RFC that describes
> a 'Best Practices' type of condition.
>> I do not see a conflict with the IPP RFC in doing this. It would,
> in fact, probably be a good way to handle the issues of 'particular
> URI formats for portability'.
>> Also, an informational RFC and 'Best Practices' is not binding...
> just gentle hints.
>> Patrick Powell
>> > From ipp-owner at pwg.org Fri Sep 5 11:39:50 1997
> > From: Paul Moore <paulmo at microsoft.com>
> > To: "'Roger K Debry'" <rdebry at us.ibm.com>, ipp at pwg.org> > Subject: RE: IPP>MOD Why use Job-Id instead of Job-URI for Jobs?
> > Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:03:53 -0700
> > We discussed this at the august meeting. You cannot extract the
> > from the job-URI. Remember a 'particluar implmentation' has no
> > for things visible in a wire protocol. There is both the client and
> > server - if the url is to be in a specifc format then both sides
> > agree to this. The only way that this would work is if we mandated
> > url format (which we discussed doing and voted against)