PWG> Media Surface characteristics

PWG> Media Surface characteristics

PWG> Media Surface characteristics

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Tue Mar 29 11:46:43 EST 2005


Hi,

Recopied IPP WG list, because:
(a) The 'pwg at pwg.org' list requires a separate subscription and rejects
    postings from non-subscribers
(b) The element in question _is_ in fact normatively defined by an IPP spec
    (see below).

As I told Harry Lewis earlier this morning, the ultimate source of the 
media-coating attribute is CIP4's JDF/1.0 spec (they distinguish between 
'front-coating' and 'back-coating' and they now have a longer list of 
enumerated surface types).  

The FSG/OpenPrinting Job Ticket API/1.0 (now in 'last call') also supports 
both 'front-coating' and 'back-coating' elements in abstract job tickets.

The proper normative reference for this element is IEEE/ISTO PWG 5100.3.  

The PWG Semantic Model does NOT define any element, just collates them 
into a dictionary and represents them in XML Schema.  The PWG SM always 
imports the semantics of each element fromn a cited source specification
(IETF, PWG, etc.).

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pwg at pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Bergman, Ron
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 8:40 PM
To: Harry Lewis
Cc: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> Media Surface characteristics


Harry,

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.

    Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 5:13 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: pwg at pwg.org; ipp at pwg.org
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 
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems 
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
---------------------------------------------- 


"Bergman, Ron" <Ron.Bergman at rpsa.ricoh.com> 
03/28/2005 05:48 PM ToHarry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <pwg at pwg.org> 
cc<ipp at pwg.org> 
SubjectRE: PWG> Media Surface characteristics







Harry, 
  
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. 
  
    Ron 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pwg at pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 2:09 PM
To: pwg at pwg.org
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> Media Surface characteristics


In the IPP Production Print Attributes - Set 1,
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/candidates/cs-ippprodprint10-20010212-5100.3.pdf 
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> 
       <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"/> 
               </xsd:restriction> 
       </xsd:simpleType> 

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 
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems 
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
---------------------------------------------- 



More information about the Pwg mailing list