My points are:
1. I am not really concerned about cases where "ipp:" is handled under the
covers by computers.
2. In cases where people handle URL's, I think the "http:" URL is better
from a number of perspectives which I have already described. Some how
people seem to figure out business cards that say:
Phone: 606-232-4808
Fax: 606-232-6740
even though the phone numbers look very similar to the fax numbers.
Equally, I think people can handle quite well (largely because it looks
like the familiar web URL they are used to):
Web: http://www.lexmark.com
Printer: http://printer1.bldg035.lexmark.com
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************
Scott Lawrence <lawrence%agranat.com at interlock.lexmark.com> on 07/13/98
08:20:41 AM
To: Ipp%Pwg.Org at interlock.lexmark.com
cc: Keith Moore <moore%cs.utk.edu at interlock.lexmark.com> (bcc: Don
Wright)
bcc: Don Wright
Subject: Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme
don at lexmark.com wrote:
> >That's not true. ipp: would appear "on the wire" in all sorts of
> >places -- in HTML documents, LDAP responses, ACAP responses, etc. --
> >any time someone needs to refer to a printer.
> >
> >Keith
don at lexmark.com wrote:
> Yes, but in all these cases, a human being does not see this raw
material.
> It is technically irrelevant whether the responses say "ipp:", "http:",
or
> anything else for that matter.
Without taking sides on this debate, it is worth pointing out that the
early
developers of the web all thought that ordinary users would never deal
directly with URLs at all - only HTML authors would ever see them. We all
see them every day in mail, TV, newspapers, billboards...
--
Scott Lawrence Consulting Engineer <lawrence at agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc. Embedded Web Technology http://www.agranat.com/