> From jkm at underscore.com Fri Sep 5 16:21:30 1997
>> Robert Herriot wrote:
>>> > 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.
>> I believe this is a different issue that should not be confused with
> the issue of standard URI syntax definitions.
I disagree. A parseable Job-URI would still be a problem for gateways.
That is, they would still need a job submitted to Printer P to have
a job identification of (P,n) where n is some integer.