All:
I too am violently opposed to this addition to what STARTED as a nice, simple,
short standard that accomplished a lot. I would hate to see this grow and grow
and grow until we can specify:
toilet-tissue.na-4x4.4000-4000.white.extra-soft.two-ply.lubricated
PLEASE STOP!! Write another INFORMATIONAL document if you want to do this.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Chair, Printer Working Group *
* Chair, IEEE MSC *
* *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************
Tom,
This new proposal is much more complex than what was presented
yesterday. I thought that the previous version was more than
adequate for what was requested. I would like to hear from
those that were asking for the "all-in-one" format before we
make any further decisions on either proposal.
I did notice one item in reading your proposal...
I was about to suggest the addition of the media types:
- stationery-bond
- stationery-recycled
- stationery-punched
- stationery-letterhead
- stationery-preprinted
Which seem to fit very well into the current list of media types.
I see that the Production Printing Extension has media-pre-printed
as a separate attribute with keywords pre-printed and letter-head.
Also, media-recycled is a separate attribute.
It seems that extending the stationary type, as is done with
envelope and continuous may not be as flexible but provides a
fewer number of attibutes.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:39 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman at aol.com'; Norbert Schade
(E-mail); Michael Sweet
Subject: MED - Thoughts on the all-in-one name string for the Appendix
of the Media Name standard
Ron,
Here are some thoughts for the Media Names Standard appendix about
concatenating fields to make an all-in-one name string that could be used as
keyword values of the IPP/1.1 "media" Job Template attribute. I hope people
will comment, especially those who have advocated the all-in-one name string
fills an important need (which I agree with).
The Media Names standard already has three fields:
Media Type Name:
stationery, transparency, envelope, envelope-plain, envelope-window,
continuous, continuous-long, continuous-short, tab-stock, pre-cut-tabs,
full-cut-tabs, multi-part-form, labels, multi-layer, screen, screen-paged,
photographic, cardstock
Media Size Self Describing Name:
[prefix] size-name "." short-dim "-" long-dim
Media Color Name:
'no-color', 'white', 'pink', 'yellow', 'blue', 'green', 'buff',
'goldenrod', 'red', 'gray', 'ivory', 'orange'
and we've agreed to add Media Coating names:
'none', 'glossy', 'high-gloss', 'semi-gloss', 'satin', 'matte'
Assumption: that the three fields in our current draft MUST be present in
an all-in-one name string and in order, separated by "." without any need to
name the fields, since they all must be present:
Media Type Name "." Media Size Self Describing Name "." Media Color Name
Examples:
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white
stationery.iso-a4.iso-a4.2100-2970.white
photographic.na-5x7.5000-7000.white
transparency.na-letter.8500-11000.no-color
envelope.na-9x11.9000-11000.blue
>From the PWG IEEE-ISTO 5100.3 IPP Production Printing Extension, we have 7
additional member attributes of the "media-col" collection that could be
fields in an all-in-one name string:
media-pre-printed:
'blank', 'pre-printed', letter-head'
media-hole-count:
'0', '1', '2', '3', ...
media-order-count:
'1', '2', '3', ...
media-weight-metric:
'80', ...
media-back-coating:
'none', 'glossy', 'high-gloss', 'semi-gloss', 'satin', 'matte'
media-front-coating:
'none', 'glossy', 'high-gloss', 'semi-gloss', 'satin', 'matte'
media-recycled:
'none', 'standard'
I'm using these 7 fields from the PWG 5100.3 as examples of how to extend
the all-in-one string name that could be used with the IPP/1.1 "media" Job
Template attribute. Whether our Appendix should give these as examples, or
just give the pattern for additional fields, needs to be decided.
These 7 additional fields are OPTIONAL in two senses:
a. the implementation doesn't support the concept
b. the implementation does support the concept, but the usual value of the
field is 'none' for most media instances.
6 of the 7 fields have a natural 'none' value that could be represented by
the omission of the field, rather than a specific value: pre-printed=blank,
hole-count=0, order-count=1, back-coating=none, front-coating=none,
recycled=none. Only weight-metric always needs a value if weight is
supported.
Whether or not these "optional" fields could occur in any order would depend
on the standard that references the Media Name standard.
I see three different approaches to combining the remaining 7 optional
fields into an all-in-one name string, from most rigorous for machine
parsing to simplest for human recognition.
a. have each field start with a field name and a special character. Since
"_" is the only character in IPP keyword syntax not used, I'm suggesting
using it as the delimiter character. Example fields: 'recycled_standard',
'hole-count_3', 'front-coating_matte'
b. have each field start with a field name set off by 'hyphen'. Examples:
'recycled-standard', 'hole-count-3', 'front-coating-matte'
c. don't have field names at all. Just depend on the values not colliding.
Examples: 'recycled', 'matte'. But that can't be done for the numeric
values, for weight, hole count, order count, so need prefix or suffix for
them. Examples: '3-hole', 'order-count-2'
Here are the 5 examples above with each of the three methods:
a. field names set off with "_":
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white.weight-metric_80
stationery.iso-a4.iso-a4.2100-2970.white.weight-metric_80.pre-printer_letter
-head
photographic.na-5x7.5000-7000.white.weight-metric_80.front-coating_matte
transparency.na-letter.8500-11000.no-color.weight-metric_80.hole-count_3
envelope.na-9x11.9000-11000.blue.weight-metric_80.recyled_standard
b. field names set off with "-":
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white.weight-metric-80
stationery.iso-a4.iso-a4.2100-2970.white.pre-printer-letter-head
photographic.na-5x7.5000-7000.white.weight-metric-80.front-coating-matte
transparency.na-letter.8500-11000.no-color.weight-metric-80.hole-count-3
envelope.na-9x11.9000-11000.blue.weight-metric-80.recycled-standard
c. no field names, except for numeric data:
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white.80gpsm
stationery.iso-a4.iso-a4.2100-2970.white.letter-head
photographic.na-5x7.5000-7000.white.80gpsm.matte
transparency.na-letter.8500-11000.no-color.80gpsm.3-holes
envelope.na-9x11.9000-11000.blue.80gpsm.recycled
Someone had asked a question about the Media Coating as to whether we were
just defining the name values or whether we were also defining the
attributes, so that the coating for the front could be specified separately
from the back. So we probably need to pick something for our Appendix for
the Coating for front versus back.
Comments?
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 08:02
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; Bergman, Ron
Cc: ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman at aol.com'; Norbert Schade
(E-mail); Michael Sweet
Subject: RE: min and max size and the creeping scope of the media
standard [all-in-one names]
Tom,
Based upon the IPP restriction, the period is acceptable.
As far as having some parameters optional in the string, my preference
is no. Every parameter must have a value. This keeps processing the
string simple and additional parameters can be added without breaking
any old applications.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:13 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman at aol.com'; Norbert Schade
(E-mail); Michael Sweet
Subject: RE: min and max size and the creeping scope of the media
standard [all-in-one names]
Ron,
While slash is kind of clear, the problem is that it can't be used as an IPP
keyword for the "media" attribute. IPP 'keyword' values can only be all
lower case letters, digits, ".", "-", and "_". We wouldn't want to have IPP
encode these all in one names using the 'name' attribute syntax, since IPP
RECOMMENDs case insensitivity (upper case allowed and equivalent to lower
case) for the 'name' attribute syntax values. I don't see any problem with
using the "." to separate fields in the all-in-one names, since the media
size field must have a "." within it as well. With ".", the names are like:
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white.none
which really reads pretty well. The fact that the Media Size Self
Describing Name field is made up of two fields: Media Size Name and
Dimensions, doesn't both me and still fits our syntax.
But if there is objection to this dual use of ".", the underscore ("_")
character is also available in the IPP 'keyword' syntax. Using the
underscore character the names would look like:
stationery_na-letter.8500-11000_white_none
But if we use underscore to separate the fields, what will we use if we want
to make fields optional, such as the Media Coating, which will usually want
to be 'none'? There aren't any more IPP 'keyword' characters left.
I had suggested that we might want to put the name of the field as a prefix
separated by "_", if the field can be left out. Then we could have:
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white -- meaning no coating
and:
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white.coating_matte
when a coating other than none was wanted.
Or we could just bite the bullet and always carry coating 'none' along in
the names, since these names are intended for program to program
communication and have no optional field mechanism. We could leave the idea
of optional fields to the future (as long as we don't use up "_" now).
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 18:39
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; Bergman, Ron
Cc: ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman at aol.com'; Norbert Schade
(E-mail); Michael Sweet
Subject: RE: min and max size and the creeping scope of the media
standard [new subject]
Tom,
The all-in-one could be postponed. I was thinking it should be an
appendix in the Media Names standard as the recommended method of
concatenating the defined media names to create a single media
definition. Even so, it could be first published as an addendum
and then later integrated into the standard in next years update.
If we are close to having an agreement, it could be added now.
I have no problem with your proposal. One thought I had was
replacing the period as a separator between names with a slash(/).
This might be easier on a parser, since the period is now the
separator in the size name. So your example would be:
stationery/na-letter.8500-11000/white/none
Or, would a different character be better?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 5:51 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman at aol.com'; Norbert Schade
(E-mail); Michael Sweet
Subject: Re: min and max size and the creeping scope of the media
standard [new subject]
Looks good to me for the min and max. I agree that it fits within the scope
of the standard.
About the creeping scope of the media standard, I agree that UPnP doesn't
need the all-in-one, but IPP could really use it. But if everyone keeps
adding requirements, we'll never get what we seem to have good agreement on
done. How about stopping the current version with:
Media Type Names
Media Color Names
Media Finish Names
Media Size Self Describing Names
and then add the all-in-one as a companion PWG standard which augments this
standard and which also has any other fields needed as well? Much as I'd
like to see the all-in-one for IPP for use with the existing "media" Job
Template attribute, I think that it can wait a few months. Also I suspect
that it will take more debate and design.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 17:31
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; Michael Sweet; Bergman, Ron
Cc: ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman at aol.com'; Norbert Schade
(E-mail)
Subject: RE: UPD> Re: IPP> MED - Media Standardized Names Draft D0.4
down- loaded
Tom,
I have added the following:
5.2.5 The size-name "max" shall be reserved to indicate an upper
size limit of either a device or application. Also, the size-name
"min" shall be reserved to indicate a lower size limit. Example:
For a device that can process forms as small as 2 x 3 inches to
18 x 36 inches:
na-custom-max.18000-36000 and na-custom-min.2000-3000
This is part of the custom size section (5.2). My original concern
was how this was to be presented. This paragraph keeps within my
guidelines as more applicable to media and not a device.
I am quite sensitive to the issue of expansion of the scope of this
project. Keep in mind that this started out as a simple compilation
of all known media sizes. We have since added color, type, finish,
and now there is a proposal for an all-in-one format. There also
have been rejected proposals for media feed direction, printing
orientation, and others that I have already forgotten.
Not that what has been added is bad, we just have to be somewhat
selective as to what is included. On the one hand, I am hearing
that the UPnP project needs this completed before the meeting
this month and then I see all the additions everyone wants. When
sonething is added, it may add a nice feature, but it also pushes
out the completion date.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 14:23
To: Harry Lewis; Mark VanderWiele
Cc: Mark_Hamzy/Austin/IBM%IBMUS; IPP Group; Norbert Schade;
owner-ipp at pwg.org; Pete Zannucci; UPD group
Subject: RE: UPD> Re: IPP> min/max custom size values
Harry and Mark,
To build on your idea (you turned me around), we could take the current IPP
"media" attribute and define how to concatenate the keyword values in the
Media Standard to make new IPP keywords, to make a "joined syntax".
If we did that and put the concatenation rules into the Media standard
itself, then we would be defining Media Names (something that the current
draft says we aren't doing - see the Media Name definition in Section 2
Terminology, but we can just change that statement).
We can just put the rules for combining the keyword values together. We
don't need to add any more tables.
All we need to do is pick the order and the separator character.
For order, how about in order of decreasing significance:
Media Type Name
Media Size Name
Media Color Name
Media Coating Name (we've agreed to add this fourth set of names)
For a separator character, I suggest that we use the ".", which we are
already using as a separator character in the MediaSize.
Examples of Media Names:
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white.none
stationery.iso-a4.iso-a4.2100-2970.white.none
photographic.na-5x7.5000-7000.white.matte
transparency.na-letter.8500-11000.no-color.none
envelope.na-9x11.9000-11000.blue.none
For the first three fields, they MUST all be present. But what about Media
Coating. The values are: 'none', 'glossy', 'high-gloss', 'semi-gloss',
'satin', 'matte'
If this were the last field ever, then we could say if it is missing, then
it means 'none'. But I suspect that we want to be able to keep adding
fields in the future (or that implementers might want to be able to add
fields). Do we need to introduce keywords for those fields that can be
omitted, such as Media Coating?
The equal sign (=) would be more natural to set off keywords from values.
However, to be compatible with IPP, the only unassigned character in IPP
keywords is "underscore" (_). So think of the "coating_" as a prefix on the
values.
So the above 5 examples would be:
stationery.na-letter.8500-11000.white
stationery.iso-a4.iso-a4.2100-2970.white
photographic.na-5x7.5000-7000.white.coating_matte
transparency.na-letter.8500-11000.no-color
envelope.na-9x11.9000-11000.blue
Only the third one has the keyword coating, since it is the only one that
has a coating that isn't 'none'. We probably have to define a canonical
order for keywords presence or absence, in order to eliminate different
orderings being equivalent, correct?
Comments?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 13:37
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: Mark_Hamzy/Austin/IBM%IBMUS; IPP Group; Mark VanderWiele; Norbert
Schade; owner-ipp at pwg.org; Pete Zannucci; UPD group
Subject: RE: UPD> Re: IPP> min/max custom size values
I think one of the things that might be encouraging Mark to recommend a
"joined syntax" is the rate at which we keep inventing and/or applying new
access protocols to this information (SNMP, IPP, uPnP etc.). If we were to
define a joined syntax that concatenates the necessary information to
"use" the media in the device (including Media Size, Media Type, Media
Source, Media Name) there would be a greater chance of adoption across
protocols (new and revised).
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
04/03/2001 01:30 PM
To: Mark VanderWiele <markv at us.ibm.com>, Norbert Schade
<norbertschade at oaktech.com>
cc: UPD group <upd at pwg.org>, IPP Group <ipp at pwg.org>, Pete
Zannucci
<pzaan at us.ibm.com>, Mark_Hamzy/Austin/IBM%IBMUS <hamzy at us.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: UPD> Re: IPP> min/max custom size values
Mark,
I agree that real applications need to know about combinations of media
attributes. However, each print protocol has different ways to deal with
that. So I think it is wiser for the Media standard to just list the
names
of the various characteristics and leave it to the various Print protocols
do deal with combinations.
Ok?
For example, have you seen the IEEE-ISTO PWG 5100.3 Production Printing
Extension, which does combine the media attributes into a collection, so
that combinations can be configured by the administrator. However, even
that spec does not have a way for the client to query the supported
combinations. Last summer and fall, the IPP WG considered a proposal for
a
Resource object that had a number of operations to create, delete, and
query
Resource objects of a defined type. Media was a suggested type. Then the
group agreed that IPP should really have distinct set of operations for
each
object type, so that we need to write a spec for the Media object that has
operations, like Create-Media, Delete-Media, Get-Media-Attributes,
Get-Media
(with a filter).
Are you interested in seeing such a spec and reviewing and/or contributing
to it?
An another example or a print protocol that deals with the combinations
problem, the UPnP EnhancedLayoutPrint template defines a GetMargins
operation in which the input parameters are MediaType and MediaSize and
the
output parameter is the four margins. If the client supplies a
combination
of MediaType and MediaSize that is not supported, the Printer MUST return
an
error code.
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark VanderWiele [mailto:markv at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 07:44
To: Norbert Schade
Cc: UPD group; IPP Group; Pete Zannucci; Mark_Hamzy/Austin/IBM%IBMUS
Subject: Re: UPD> Re: IPP> min/max custom size values
Careful, we may be making the same mistake we made in IPP where the form
size, media type, and tray are returned separately causing user interface
nightmare since all three of these really must be selected together and
represent the actual configuration of the printer. Therefore, I would
propose that when we have settled in on a syntax for the form size, media
type, and tray we go one step further and define a way to join the fields
so that the proper constraints can be represented. Perhaps a simple "+"
character. Again, form size by itself is meaningless.
Regards,
Mark VanderWiele
IBM, Linux Tecnology Center
512-838-4779, t/l 678-4779
MARKV at IBMUS
email: markv at us.ibm.com