Hmmmmm,
don't know.
I've seen a lot of rounding problems in my life.
As soon as I want to specify that the minimum hardware margin for certain
sizes is 100 pixel in 600 dpi, I am knee deep in the mud. And this is not
trivial, as you may loose at least one side of your 1-pixel thick frame
around the page.
So Harry's concern has something. That's why I originally wanted to specify
in mm/1000 (used in Windows NT as well) generally.
But now it's late in the project and I hate such a drastic change, while
mm/10 seems to be widely used also.
So for the sake of it: I do not request a change.
Norbert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
To: "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com>; <RonBergman@aol.com>
Cc: <ipp@pwg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:02 PM
Subject: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units
> Harry,
>
> There are exactly 254 mm in an inch, so the precision is about the same,
the
> inches are about 4 times more precise than the metric units.
>
> For example, the two most popular Self Describing Size Names are:
>
> The letter size (8.5 inches by 11 inches) used in North America:
> na-letter.8500-11000
> The iso A4 size (210 mm by 297 mm) used in metric countries:
> iso-a4.2100-2970
>
> Note that they both have about the same number of digits in each
dimension,
> namely around 4.
>
> Also there isn't any need to convert from inches to mm or vice versa,
> because the paper size is given ONLY in the natural units for the usage.
So
> North American sizes only use 1000ths of inches and aren't converted to
mm.
> Similarly, the non-English sizes are always given in 10ths of mm and
aren't
> converted to inches. Therefore, there is never any rounding errors to
worry
> about.
>
> The only rounding that could occur, is if some paper size is actually in
> some fraction of inches, or mm, such as 200 1/3 mm or 10 1/3 inches. But
I
> don't think we have any sizes like that.
>
> Ok?
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 15:33
> To: RonBergman@aol.com
> Cc: ipp@pwg.org
> Subject: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units
>
>
> I'm questioning the use of 1/1000 for English but only 1/10 for metric.
> Not only are we loosing precision, but, also introducing rounding errors
> during conversion from English to metric . I know the printer MIB heritage
> is 1/1000 English and 1/10 metric... but
> I think we should try to be more precise in this new media mapping.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Harry Lewis
> IBM Printing Systems
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> RonBergman@aol.com
> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
> 04/09/2001 02:26 PM
>
>
> To: <ipp@pwg.org>, <upd@pwg.org>
> cc:
> Subject: IPP> Fwd: FW: Media Standardized Names, Version
D0.6
> is now available
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Message from "Bergman, Ron" <Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com> on Mon, 9
> Apr 2001 08:02:14 -0700 -----
> To:
> "'RonBergman@aol.com'" <RonBergman@aol.com>
> Subject:
> FW: Media Standardized Names, Version D0.6 is now available
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@HITACHI-HKIS.COM]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 8:01 AM
> To: IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG
> Subject: Media Standardized Names, Version D0.6 is now available
>
>
> All,
>
> The latest draft is now available at:
>
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/pwg-media-06.pdf (or .doc)
>
> I will not repeat the abstract here or the list of changes. This
> information is
> available within the document, if you are interested. The major change to
> this
> version is the addition of the "Media Finish Names".
>
> This document will have a final review in the PWG meetings during the week
> of April 23rd and should then be ready for last call.
>
> Ron Bergman
> Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 18 2001 - 14:43:31 EDT