PWG> MED - OK if the PWG Media Type and Media Size standards are separ ate PWG standards?

PWG> MED - OK if the PWG Media Type and Media Size standards are separ ate PWG standards?

PWG> MED - OK if the PWG Media Type and Media Size standards are separ ate PWG standards?

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Mar 12 19:09:27 EST 2001


Ron and I discussed whether the Media Types should be a separate section in
the same document as the Media Sizes, or put in a separate document.  We
both feel that keeping it a separate document will be simpler and more
modular.  We think that the Media Types are less likely to have additions,
than are Media sizes.  However, either may undergo changes as some other
group needs additions to one or the other.  It will be easier for those
interested in only one of these standards to keep track of changes of it, if
they are separate.

The basis of the agreement on the mailing list seems to be that Media Type
and Media Size are independent concepts.  The best way to keep them
independent is to keep them as separate standards.  Whether some other
protocol wishes to combine the two into a single attribute is the province
of that other protocol standard, and not of either of the Media Type
standard or the Media Size standard.

Also it will be much simpler for other standards to refer to either the
Media Type standard or the Media Size standard as needed.

So are there any strong objections to making the Media Size standard and the
Media Type standard as two separate standards? 

(The current Media Size standard would remove the current discussion about
the envelope Media Type in the definitions and would remove the '-envelope'
in the names.  However, for those sizes that were originally defined for a
certain type what that type is, such as the C series is for envelopes and
some of the B series is for both stationery and envelopes, some sizes are
for postcards, etc.)

The Media Type standard would be similar to the Media Size standard but with
the Media Type names, alias, and common names listed.

When we are further along in the drafts, we'll assign them the next two
5100.n values, say 5100.5 and 5100.6, in the IEEE-ISTO PWG series.

Editors of the Media Type and Media Size standards,
Tom and Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:lfarrell at cissc.canon.com]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 18:20
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; ipp (E-mail)
Cc: pwg (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: UPD> RE: PWG> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE:
media type of " envelope"


Tom,

At the IPP meeting on Wednesday, this topic was discussed.  However, we got
stuck when trying to evaluate your proposal based on the original goal(s) of
the Standardized Names document.

Don mentioned that an exhaustive list of possible names was necessary for
UPnP.  I vaguely recall the need [or was it just a side benefit?] to be able
to parse the Self Describing Name to automatically generate a "common" or
"legacy" name for presentation to the user.  Were these intended goals of
the document?  Are there others?

In principle, no one at the meeting had any strong objections to your
suggestion.  Generally, people like the clean separation of type from size.
We just weren't sure if it created problems with regard to the intended
goal(s).

During the discussion, it was even suggested that if the group agrees to
remove the "-envelope" and a separate list of media types is created, this
list should also be included in the same document.

lee

-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:07 PM
To: ipp (E-mail)
Cc: pwg (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: UPD> RE: PWG> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media
type of " envelope"


Ron and I had a phone discussion and have come up with the following simple
suggestions for this issue about envelope media type in the PWG Media Size
standard:

1. We agreed that most sizes are not intended for envelopes, some are
intended for envelopes, and some are intended for both stationery and
envelopes.

2. The Media Size standard should not mention media types at all.  So the
exception about envelope media type in section 1.1 Scope will be removed.
We suggest that a separate short PWG standard for Media Types would be good,
that the Printer MIB, UPnP Printing, and IEEE-ISTO PWG 5100.3 Production
Printing standards can cite for their Media Type attribute values.

3. The '-envelope' will be removed from all Media Size Names in the
standard, and any resulting duplicate names will be eliminated.  The
envelope tables will be merged with the other tables.  As has been done for
postcards, the Alias (common name) column will have "(envelope)" in
parenthesis added in order to indicate that the size is intended for
envelopes.  We didn't discuss how to distinguish between the sizes, such as
na-monarch, that are intended only for envelopes and those, such as
na-10x13, which are intended for envelopes and other media types.  Thoughts?

Comments?

Thanks,
Tom

P.S. Ron can't send to the PWG DLs, so I'll copy this thread to them as
well.


-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 15:19
To: don at lexmark.com
Cc: pwg (E-mail); ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: UPD> RE: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media
type of " envelope"


Don, 

I agree with you NOT re-order any Media Self Describing Media Name (Media
Size Name for short) from the order that is in the D0.3 draft.  

What I was talking about is, if we want to also add Media Type names to the
standard as a separate concept (also needed by UPnP and the Printer MIB), we
could do that.  Then we could also define an additional syntax for Media
Names (used by IPP "media" attribute) which puts the Media Type Name in
front of the Media Size Name (same order).  These Media Type Names would NOT
be enumerated in combination with all the possible sizes, but would just be
a format.  Please see the rest of the attached mail message that talks about
the problem of the current draft that mixes Media Type and Media Size Name,
but only for envelope Media Types.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 14:36
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: pwg (E-mail); ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media type of
" envelope"




All:

I am opposed to ANY reordering of the self describing name.

prefix - medianame . widthDim - lengthDIM is the right format.

**********************************************
* 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)    *
**********************************************





"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com at interlock.lexmark.com> on
03/05/2001 01:18:35 PM

To:   "pwg (E-mail)" <pwg%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>, "ipp (E-mail)"
      <ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>, "UPDF WG (E-mail)"
      <upd%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>
cc:    (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media type of "
      envelope"



Just to be clear, neither alternatives (a) or (b) that I suggested in the
original mail change the current D0.3 syntax for the Media Size Self
Describing Name format which is (using the notation in the D0.3 version):

     prefix - mediaName . widthDim - lengthDim

Alternative (b) would add a syntax for Media Names which includes the Media
Type Name followed by the Media Size Self Describing Name.  I also change
the suggestion for the Media Name syntax slightly to put the 'na-' as part
of the Self Describing Media Size Name field, instead of in front of
everything, i.e.,:

     mediaTypeName . prefix - mediaName . widthDim - lengthDim

instead of:

     prefix - mediaTypeName . mediaName . widthDim - lengthDim


ISSUE:  Should we use real ABNF for defining the syntax?


Examples:

Media Size Self Describing Name (from current draft and with either
alternative a or b):

     iso-a4.2100-2970
     iso-b4.2500-3530
     na-letter.8500-11000

Media Name (if alternative b is added to the draft):

     stationery.iso-a4.2100-2970
     envelope.iso-b4-2500-3530
     stationery.na-letter.8500-11000
     transparency.na-letter.8500-11000

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 21:58
To: pwg (E-mail); ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media type of
"envelope"


For discussion about the "PWG Media Size Draft standard", D0.3, on the
mailing list and the UPDF and IPP WG meetings, Monday, March 5, and
Wednesday-Thursday, March 7-8.  Please discuss this fundamental issue at the
upcoming meetings.  Someone take good notes, since neither Ron nor I will be
able to attend.

Summary of issue:

Problem:
The current draft contains sizes that are independent of media type, except
for envelopes.  For each of the envelope sizes the draft includes two names,
one without '-envelope' and one with '-envelope' with the same dimensions
and says that the names with '-envelope' also imply a media type of
envelope.

Possible Solutions:
Either:

a.  "Media Size Standardized Names" - current title
The standard should be completely independent of media type but indicate
that the size names do NOT imply media type.  However, the standard should
include all sizes, even those that are primarily suited for a single media
type, such as envelopes, as well as sizes for any other media types, such as
stationery, labels, business cards, postcards, etc.

b.  "Media Size, Media Type, and Media Standardized Names"
Same as (a), but add (1) Media Type Names to the standard as a separate part
and (2) a way to combine Media Type Names and Media Size Names into Media
Names using '.' as a field separator.

We have at least six other standards that will use the results of this PWG
standard.  Here is how these other standards would use alternatives (a) and
(b):

                           Media Size   Media Type   Media
                           Name         Name         Name
                           (a and b)    (b)          (b)
Printer MIB:
prtInputMediaName (App C)                            x
prtInputMediaType                       x
Appendix B                 x

IPP:
"media" attribute          x            could        x

PWG IEEE/ISTO 5100.3:
"media-type" in "media-col"             x

IPP FAX:
"media" attribute                                    x

UPnP:
MediaType parameter                     x
MediaSize parameter        x

Wireless:
hopefully the same as UPnP



Detailed Discussion:
The D0.3 Draft has the following paragraph in the Scope section

1.1 Scope
This document defines media sizes only. Other media attributes such as
color, type, or weight are not included. One exception is the inclusion of
the media type of 'envelope.'  Since many envelope sizes are unique and
envelopes have very special physical characteristics which requires special
handling and printing formats, this attribute is included with the size.


I suggest that having this exception for envelopes will cause confusion.
The control of media type should be independent wherever Media Size Names
are used.  For example, I might want to specify a stationery media type that
is any envelope size in order to proof my envelope printing.  Also I might
want to specify an envelope media to be a stationery media size.

For protocols in which the Media Type and Media Size are independent, such
as the Printer MIB and UPnP, having this exception for envelope sizes will
cause problems.  Which takes precedence, if say, the Media Type is
'stationery' but the Media Size Name is, say 'iso-b4-envelope.2500-3530'?

For protocols where the same attribute can take on Media Names and Media
Size Names, such as IPP, having Size Names that are the same as Media Names
will be ambiguous.

In IPP, the "media" Job Template attribute takes three different kinds of
keyword names (in the following order in Appendix C):

   Media Names:
     'iso-b4-white': Specifies the ISO B4 white medium: 250 mm x 353 mm
     'iso-b4-envelope': Specifies the ISO B4 envelope medium

   Input Tray Names:
     'top': The top input tray in the printer.

   Media Size Names:
     'iso-b4': Specifies the ISO B4 size: 250 mm by 353 mm as defined in
ISO 216

This issue does point out a bug in IPP Appendix C names for the North
American keywords (but isn't for ISO and JIS names).  The same keywords
appear twice with different meanings:

   Media Names:
     'na-10x13-envelope': Specifies the North American 10x13 envelope
medium
     'monarch-envelope': Specifies the Monarch envelope
     'na-number-10-envelope': Specifies the North American number 10
business envelope medium

   Media Size Names:
     'na-10x13-envelope': Specifies the North American 10x13 size: 10
inches by 13 inches
     'monarch-envelope': Specifies the Monarch envelope size (3.87 x 7.5
in)
     'na-number-10-envelope': Specifies the North American number 10
business envelope size: 4.125 inches by 9.5 inches

The bug is that both the Media Names and the Media Size Names have the
'-envelope' component in them, meaning that they are duplicate names.  The
'-envelope' should be removed from the IPP North American Media Size Name
keywords in order to eliminate the duplicate keywords that mean different
things.  The ones with '-envelope' mean an envelope medium, the ones without
'-envelope' mean just the size.  How the media type is determined depends on
the IPP implementation (and possibly other attributes such as the
"media-type" member attribute of the "media-col" Job Template attribute (see
PWG Production Printing standard, for example: IETF-ISTO 5100.3 available
at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.3.pdf).


Back to the PWG Media Size Name standard D0.3:
There is some duplication of semantics (if we agree NOT to include the
envelope media type semantics and stick to size names only) between:

Table 3.3 North American Standard Sheet Media Sizes AND
Table 3.4 North American Standard Envelope Media Sizes

and complete duplication of the ISO b and c series between:
Table 3.5 ISO Standard Sheet Media Sizes AND
Table 3.6 ISO Standard Envelope Media Sizes

where the only difference in the Self Describing Name is whether or not
there is an '-envelope' component.

So whether we choose Alternative (a) or (b), delete Table 3.4 and Table 3.6.
For those entries in Table 3.4 and Table 3.6 that don't have any
corresponding size in Table 3.3 or Table 3.5, move the name to 3.3 or 3.5,
either removing the '-envelope' or change it to 'envelope-size'.  For
example, move 'na-personal-envelope.3625-6500' to 3.3 and change its name to
either 'na-personal.3625-6500' or 'na-personal-envelope-size.3624-6500',
depending on which the group thinks is clearer.  Same for
'na-number-11-envelope.4500-10375', etc.

I don't know about the Japanese and Chinese envelope sizes.



Alternative (b) (add Media Type Names and Media Names)

Alternative (b) needs all the same changes as alternative (a).  In addition
we would add a list of Media Type Names.  Lets start with the names from the
Printer MIB, Internet FAX, and IEEE-ISTO 5100.3 PWG Production Printing
which includes some Media Type Names needed by UPnP:

          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
          other

The syntax for Media Names could be:

     [na-]MediaTypeName.MediaSizeName.WidthDim-LengthDim

Media Names wouldn't need to be added as additional tables or table entries
in the standard, but just a rule for generation from the MediaTypeName and
the MediaSizeName values.

Comments?

Thanks,
Tom



-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:50
To: ipp (E-mail); pwg (E-mail)
Subject: PWG> FW: Update to Media Sizes Document (version D0.3)


I've created a sub-directory for the PWG media-sizes project and copied D0.3
version into it:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/pwg-media-size-03.pdf

I've also copied the versions of Jim Lo's original document in .doc, .pdf,
and .html:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/papersizes-ipp-gpd-ppd.html
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/papersizes-ipp-gpd-ppd.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/papersizes-ipp-gpd-ppd.pdf

Also two RFCs the deal with media from the Internet Fax group:

RFC 2879 - Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax (V2)
RFC 2534 - Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/rfc2879.txt
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/rfc2534.txt

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at HITACHI-HKIS.COM]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 07:53
To: IMAGING at FORUM.UPNP.ORG
Subject: Update to Media Sizes Document (version D0.3)


I did not receive any comments on the D0.2 version, so this update only
includes the missing paragraphs plus some corrections i discovered.

I hope this can be reviewed in the UDPF and/or the IPP meetings in Tampa.
Since I am not able to attend these meetings, someone needs to take good
notes.

        Ron Bergman
        Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
 <<pwg-media-size-03.pdf>>






More information about the Pwg mailing list