IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Mon Apr 2 13:07:05 EDT 2001


Ron,

The UPnP IMAGING WG is meeting in Portland OR, the first two days of the PWG
meeting, April 23-24.  I think we agreed at the last UPnP telecon (March
22), to vote at that meeting whether or not to change the UPnP Template to
refer to the PWG Media standard for the MediaType and MediaSize values.  If
we do have such a vote, it would be good to know what the durable URL (PWG
standard number assigned) might be for the PWG standard.

On the other hand, the UPnP Basic Template will be undergoing other votes
and changes, so maybe it isn't so crucial to have the PWG standard number by
the April 23 meeting, but it would help give the UPnP IMAGING WG confidence
that there would be a standard that the UPnP BasicPrint Template could point
to.

Shivaun,
The UPnP minutes didn't reflect such a vote about referring to the PWG
standard for the MediaType and MediaSize values.  In fact the minutes don't
mention MediaType or MediaSize at all.  What did we agree to at the Last
UPnP telecon?  I had thought that we were going to vote on whether or not to
refer to the PWG standard for additional values and use the syntax from the
PWG standard which is slightly different from the current UPnP Template
(scaled units with no decimal fraction, use the "na-" prefix to distinguish
inches from mm, and use "." to separate the size name from the dimensions).
These seem important enough changes to warrant a vote (and an announcement
of intent to vote at least a week before the meeting).

Don and Ron,
A second question is when do we actually assign the number?  It is at the
start of the PWG Last Call, or after it completes the PWG Last Call?  I
thought that it was at the start of the PWG Last Call, in which case we
could put the number on the Media standard next week when we start PWG last
Call.  Right?

I was thinking that for the PWG Last Call (before final approval), the
document would say something like:

When this document is approved by the PWG as a PWG Draft standard following
the procedures in:  ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/pwg-process.pdf it
will become available at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.n.pdf, .doc, .rtf

where "n" is the number that we assign at the start of the PWG Last Call.

Thanks,
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 16:53
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; Bergman, Ron; RonBergman at aol.com
Cc: pwg at pwg.org; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available


Thanks Tom!

I believe I have all the other changes included and I plan to do a
final check this weekend.  So I'll hold off until these arrive so
we can have a close to final draft next week.

Regarding an ISTO-PWG assigned number, Don told me we have to wait
until Working Group last call before it can be assigned.  If we 
start the last call next week the earliest we would have a number 
is May 2nd.  Why again must the UpNP have a number before the next
meeting?

	Ron

Here is the response from Don.
>>
>> Ron:
>> 
>> We can assign this a number any time but....
>> 
>> 1) Since this is an output of the IPP working group, it needs a 2 week
working
>> group last call, then...
>> 
>> 2) A PWG membership vote (another 2 weeks)
>> 
>> 3) Then it will be posted to the PWG standards page probably as
>> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.5.pdf
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> * Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com *
>> * Chair, Printer Working Group               *
>> * Chair, IEEE MSC                            *


-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 4:06 PM
To: Bergman, Ron; Hastings, Tom N; RonBergman at aol.com
Cc: pwg at pwg.org; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available


I just ordered a copy from the ASME.  It should be here next Tuesday.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 07:38
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; RonBergman at aol.com
Cc: pwg at pwg.org; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available


Tom,

I do not have access to ASME-Y14.1M, so I am unable to do this
research.  Do you have a copy?

	Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 7:14 PM
To: RonBergman at aol.com
Cc: pwg at pwg.org; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available


IPP (RFC2911) has a number of media names that include engineering sizes
taken from [ASME-Y14.1M].  For some reason we only included them as media
names (e.g., iso-a1x3-transparent), and not as media size names (e.g.,
iso-a1x3) in IPP.  These size names are:

iso-a1x3, iso-a1x4
iso-a2x3, iso-a2x4, iso-a2x5
iso-a3x3, iso-a3x4, iso-a3x5, iso-a3x6, iso-a3x7
iso-a4x3, iso-a4x4, iso-a4x5, iso-a4x6, iso-a4x7, iso-a4x8, iso-a4x9

Should we add them?

Someone should look at [ASME-Y14.1M] and get the proper length dimensions
(which aren't in IPP), to go with the width dimensions which are in IPP.

Thanks,
Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: RonBergman at aol.com [mailto:RonBergman at aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:48
To: pwg at pwg.org; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available


The latest version is now available at:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/pwg-media-05.pdf

The major change is the merging of the envelope sizes
with the other tables and the separation of the media
type with the size.  In addition I have added the
definition of a format for custom media types and color
per a request from Norbert.

There are still two open issues that I am waiting for
clarification from Tom.

1. Tom added a reference [REG] in section 3, but no
corresponding entry in the References section.

2. The ABNF for the size name in section 5.1 may be
incorrect.  I am not an ABNF expert, but I believe that
    | "-" | "-" )  should be simply   | "-" )

I will try to attend the IPP teleconference tomorrow
to discuss any other issues concerning this document.

     Ron Bergman
     Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions



More information about the Pwg mailing list