attachment-0001

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Harry,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I didn't mean to imply the surface characteristics don't affect printing, they </DIV> <DIV>certainly do!  I just wondering if, for example a coated glossly surface would</DIV> <DIV>have different characteristics than a non-coated glossy surface.  I suspect</DIV> <DIV>not, but just thought it should be mentioned.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If someone does indeed require a special coating they certainly would have</DIV> <DIV>a detailed specification regarding the coating and would not depend upon</DIV> <DIV>just the IPP attribute or the semantic.  So, what I ment to imply in my</DIV> <DIV>previous email is: I don't see any problem with your proposed suggestion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>    Ron</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 5:13 PM To: Bergman, Ron Cc: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org Subject: RE: PWG> Media Surface characteristics </DIV> 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 ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="40%">"Bergman, Ron" <Ron.Bergman@rpsa.ricoh.com> 03/28/2005 05:48 PM <TD width="59%"> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right>To</DIV> <TD>Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <pwg@pwg.org> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right>cc</DIV> <TD><ipp@pwg.org> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right>Subject</DIV> <TD>RE: PWG> Media Surface characteristics</TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </TR></TBODY></TABLE> 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@pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 2:09 PM To: pwg@pwg.org Cc: ipp@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 ---------------------------------------------- </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>