If you happen to be using HTTP as the IPP transfer protocol, your match=
ing
algorithm should use the HTTP rules for comparing URIs:
   3.2.3   URI Comparison
   When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client SHO=
ULD use a
   case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire URIs, with th=
ese
   exceptions:
     =B7  A port that is empty or not given is equivalent to the defaul=
t port for
        that URI-reference;
     =B7  Comparisons of host names MUST be case-insensitive;
     =B7  Comparisons of scheme names MUST be case-insensitive;
     =B7  An empty abs_path is equivalent to an abs_path of ?/?.
   Characters other than those in the ?reserved? and ?unsafe? sets (see=
 section
   3.2) are equivalent to their ?"%" HEX HEX? encoding.
   For example, the following three URIs are equivalent:
         http://abc.com:80/~smith/home.html
         http://ABC.com/%7Esmith/home.html
         http://ABC.com:/%7esmith/home.html
>
>3) Does this above logic also apply to a job object specified with a
>printer-uri and job-id?  Is it also true for a job specified with a jo=
b-uri?
>PZ> Yes and yes
>
>4) Can a restrictive implementation reject a printer or job operation =
if the
>operational attribute printer-uri is not a value of the
>printer-uri-supported?
>PZ> Yes it could, with an error code of client-error-not-found
>
I noticed at Bakeoff 2 that about half the Printers ignored "printer-ur=
i"; that
is, it could contain a bogus value and the operation would still be acc=
epted.
The other Printers insisted on a correct printer-uri.
I know of at least one implementation that forms the "job-uri" in a Job=
 creation
response from the "printer-uri" passed in the request.  The Printer its=
elf
doesn't care about what's in "printer-uri" but it does echo it back in =
the
"job-uri".
>5) Must the URL in the printer-uri-supported attribute be absolute(i.e=
.
>fully qualified)?
>PZ> Yes.  The printer-supported-uri is transformed by well defined rul=
es to
>arrive at the address used in the HTTP layer.
>
>
>Any comments?
I tried to get some of these issues clarified a long, long time ago, wi=
thout a
whole lot of success  (see http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/0454.html,
http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/1293.html,  and
http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/0963.html for example).  They can be i=
nterop
issues.  I still wish we went with the proposal to remove the printer-u=
ri and
job-uri operation attriubtes (http://www.pwg.org/hypermail/ipp/0693.htm=
l).
>Pete
>                   Peter Zehler
>                   XEROX
>                   Xerox Architecture Center
>                   Email: peter.zehle-@usa.xerox.com
>                   Voice:    (716) 265-8755
>                   FAX:      (716) 265-8792
>                   US Mail: Peter Zehler
>                           Xerox Corp.
>                           800 Phillips Rd.
>                           M/S 139-05A
>                           Webster NY, 14580-9701
>
>
>
    -Carl
=