PWG> Media Surface characteristics

PWG> Media Surface characteristics

PWG> Media Surface characteristics

Bergman, Ron Ron.Bergman at
Mon Mar 28 20:39:50 EST 2005

I didn't mean to imply the surface characteristics don't affect printing, they 
certainly do!  I just wondering if, for example a coated glossly surface would
have different characteristics than a non-coated glossy surface.  I suspect
not, but just thought it should be mentioned.
If someone does indeed require a special coating they certainly would have
a detailed specification regarding the coating and would not depend upon
just the IPP attribute or the semantic.  So, what I ment to imply in my
previous email is: I don't see any problem with your proposed suggestion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 5:13 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: pwg at; ipp at
Subject: RE: PWG> Media Surface characteristics

I suggested further replies be sent to PWG reflector ONLY (not IPP). The topic is broader then just IPP but I wanted to capture IPP participants attention. 

As for the topic... I think the point is that these characteristics DO affect printing... that is the whole point. But surface characteristics which affect printing can be achieved via more methods than just coating. I don't think we intended to write a separate list of surface characteristics which might be achieved by each method. So, our use of "coating" is colloquial. I have no problem with that. If someone were to interpret literally, they would be left wondering how to describe something like "glossy-non-coated".   
Harry Lewis 
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems

"Bergman, Ron" <Ron.Bergman at> 

03/28/2005 05:48 PM 

Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <pwg at> 

<ipp at> 

RE: PWG> Media Surface characteristics


This appears to be a reasonable suggestion.  The only potential "catch" would be if the 
presence of a coating, rather than the surface finish, affects the print characteristics. 
(I am not aware of a situation that falls into this category, but I also don't have much 
experience with technologies other than laser.) 
If the coating does matter, then the MediaCoatingWKV is deficient in providing that 
information, since I suspect there is more information necessary than is currently 
defined to define the coating characteristics. 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pwg at [mailto:owner-pwg at]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 2:09 PM
To: pwg at
Cc: ipp at
Subject: PWG> Media Surface characteristics

In the IPP Production Print Attributes - Set 1, 
Page 47, 3.13.10 we describe Job Template attributes which augment the IPP media definitions including "media-front-coating" and "media-back-coating". 
These are likewise reflected in the PWG Semantic Model v1.0 MediaWellKnownValues.xsd as "MediaCoatingWKV". 
       <xsd:simpleType name="MediaCoatingWKV"> 
               <xsd:restriction base="xsd:NMTOKEN"> 
                       <xsd:maxLength value="255"/> 
                       <xsd:enumeration value="none"/> 
                       <xsd:enumeration value="glossy"/> 
                       <xsd:enumeration value="high-gloss"/> 
                       <xsd:enumeration value="semi-gloss"/> 
                       <xsd:enumeration value="satin"/> 
                       <xsd:enumeration value="matte"/> 

Three questions to be considered 

1. In use, it seems what we really wanted to convey is "surface characteristics". By labeling the element "coating" and including the value "none", there is an implication that coating is necessary and it leaves NO WAY to represent surface characteristics of a NON-COATED media. For example, in paper, it is possible to achieve a high gloss via high pressure calendaring (no coating... but results in shiny surface". IS IT ACCEPTED PROPER INTERPRETATION TO USE MediaCoatingWKV to mean media surface characteristics, in general, coated or not? 
2. If the answer to 1 is YES, then what is the semantic of the value NONE? 
3. What is the accurate and preferred way to reference this "dictionary" in another document. Is it more proper to reference 5100.3-2001(The IPP extension which originally documented these values) or 5105.1 the Semantic Model, or point directly to MediaWellKnownValues.xsd? I assume SM is preferred.   

Sorry for the double post. I think this is broader than just an IPP question but the root document is an IPP extension. 
Harry Lewis 
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Pwg mailing list