Sounds reasonable to me.
paulmo at microsoft.com on 10/07/98 01:59:34 PM
Please respond to paulmo at microsoft.com
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at ibmus, rbergma at dpc.com
cc: robert.herriot at Eng.Sun.COM, ipp at pwg.org, Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM at ibmus,
hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Subject: RE: IPP> uRl CAse iSsUE
I would add the recomendation that implementations avoid creating URLs for
differnt printers that differ only in their case.
I.e. dont have Printer1 and printer1 as two different printers.
From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma at dpc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 11:37 AM
To: Harry Lewis
Cc: hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com; Carl Kugler; ipp at pwg.org;
robert.herriot at Eng.Sun.COM
Subject: Re: IPP> uRl CAse iSsUE
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Harry Lewis wrote:
> THiS IS abOUT As fAR As i WOUlD gO wiTH anY REcomMendAtiOn reGARding CasE
> SensiTIVitY in ThE IMPleMeNtoRS GUiDe...
>> " IPP client and server implementations must be aware of the diverse
> uppercase/lowercase nature of URLs. RFC xxxx defines URL schemes and Host
> as case insensitive but reminds us that the rest of the URL may well
> demonstrate case sensitivity. When creating URL's, where the choice is
> completely arbitrary, it is probably best to select lower case however,
> cannot be guaranteed and implementations MUST NOT rely on any specific
> type in the URL beyond the URL scheme and host name".
>> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems