IPP> RE: Comments on Media Size Objectives

IPP> RE: Comments on Media Size Objectives

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Fri May 11 01:25:00 EDT 2001


Sorry, I'll be on a plane Monday during the call. I've tried to make my 
position clear. I think we need to simplify the objectives for the naming 
syntax and pursue a more robust schema to resolve our ongoing issues. 

If we end up with "units" in the simple name... I won't croak... but, 
given that 98% of what we are doing is compiling a list of existing media 
names/sizes and 1.999% is maybe allowing for additions to the list... I'd 
say there is a very slim chance that we will encounter other than inches 
or mm. 
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 




"Bergman, Ron" <Ron.Bergman at Hitachi-hkis.com>
05/10/2001 01:10 PM

 
        To:     "'Harry Lewis'" <harryl at US.IBM.COM>, IMAGING at FORUM.UPNP.ORG
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: Comments on Media Size Objectives

 

Harry,

Requirement #5 is the source of our current disagreement.  If we agree 
that
only inches and millimeters are the required units, now and for ever more, 
I
believe that this can be quickly resolved!

One of the requirements that we missed, but is defined in the document...
This provides an extension of media size names for legacy standards 
(Printer
MIB and IPP) as well and an extension to the legacy names (size 
dimensions)
that can be used by lightweight protocols such as UPnP.  A future encoding
(XML) will be necessary to provide a robust media description.

Should be an interesting discussion on Monday.  Hope you can join.

                 Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at US.IBM.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:13 PM
To: IMAGING at FORUM.UPNP.ORG
Subject: Comments on Media Size Objectives


18 objectives for a "2-bit" "name" field!

Comments...

1. We have a compromise, not an optimization (for machine parsing).
   Suggest the concept of "facilitate" be stressed over "optimize".

4. Edit - "Only include the name in its native units" (delete "each").

5. Dump this goal!! (additional units) This has been a rat trap!
   The compromise syntax we are developing is too stressed by this
   goal. Save this for a full fledged schema.

6. I think the notion of "self describing" has been misinterpreted.
   Some feel a description should contain more (margins etc.). Some
   think "self describing" means easy to read and distinguish. It
   might be better to simply state... "The "Standard Media Name" will
   contain both a "Name" part and a "Dimension" part."


7,8,9. I think these can all be replaced by simply extending the above
       (6) to read "The "Standard Media Name" will contain 3 parts,
        1. Naming Authority
        2. Name
        3. Dimension

10. Given (6,7,8,9 - above) this is just stating the obvious. This
registry
    is a simple list. If we find stuff we've missed, we help ourselves add
    it. If we missed a galaxy or universe our there, somewhere... (i.e.
    an entire naming authority) or if we want to establish a new name
    space, we can readily do so.

On and On... I don't know about the rest. Glazed donuts come to mind.
Or... a real schema development effort!

----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------






More information about the Ipp mailing list