Chris,
> On Dec 2, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Rizzo, Christopher <Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> There is a typo in there "weavyweight".
>> Also, there is a stationery-bond in PWG 5101.1, but it is not at the registration site. Is the registration site supposed to be the official superset of all names?
Yes. I can make sure the registry is updated for stationery-bond...
>> Thanks,
> Chris
>> Christopher Rizzo
> Xerox Corporation
> GDG/Discovery/Advance Technology
> Phone: (585) 314-6936
> Email: Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>> "The realization came over me with full force that a good part of the remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own programs."
> -Maurice Wilkes, Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer
>> From: Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org>
> Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 11:46 AM
> To: Christopher Rizzo <Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>
> Cc: PWG Workgroup <ipp at pwg.org>
> Subject: Re: [IPP] Registered media-type values
>> Chris,
>> In general I'm in favor of adding these. Some feedback below...
>> FWIW, the "media-back-coating", "media-front-coating", "media-recycled", and "media-weight" member attributes are supposed to be used for this stuff, but honestly they have very few implementations and are not needed 99.99% of the time. We also have already added other "media-type" values that capture weight and coating...
>> Here is your request in the official registration template format (with my naming changes as noted below):
>> Attributes (attribute syntax)
> Keyword Attribute Value Reference
> ----------------------- ---------
> media-type (type2 keyword | name(MAX)) [PWG5100.7]
> cardstock-coated [XEROX20201202]
> cardstock-heavyweight [XEROX20201202]
> cardstock-weavyweight-coated [XEROX20201202]
> cardstock-lightweight [XEROX20201202]
> cardstock-lightweight-coated [XEROX20201202]
> labels-heavyweight [XEROX20201202]
> labels-lightweight [XEROX20201202]
> stationery-recycled [XEROX20201202]
>>>> On Dec 2, 2020, at 2:24 PM, Rizzo, Christopher via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
>>>> I would like to request the following media-types be added to the IPP IANA registry:
>>>> stationery-recycled
>> Funny, I thought we ended up adding this one already, but turns out not. There was some discussion back in 2001 asking for it and stationery-bond, and neither ended up being added.
>>> cardstock-coated-lightweight
>> cardstock-coated
>> cardstock-coated-heavyweight
>> Based on stationery, these should have the weight first, e.g.:
>> cardstock-lightweight-coated
> cardstock-heavyweight-coated
>>> cardstock-lightweight
>> cardstock-heavyweight
>>>> labels-lightweight
>> labels-heavyweight
>>>>> Notes:
>> • coated is a generic term that is used for (glossy, matte, etc) for devices that support this type of media that is not necessarily photo paper.
>> • Our devices differentiate different media weights for labels and cardstock - this differentiation exists to address (among other things) adjustments that occur for media path tolerance.
>> • lightweight cardstock or labels refers to 106-169 gsm weight
>> • standard cardstock or labels (for which there are already existing registered keywords) refer to 170-256 gsm weight
>> • heavyweight cardstock or labels refers to 257-300 gsm weight
>>>>>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>>> Christopher Rizzo
>> Xerox Corporation
>> GDG/Discovery/Advance Technology
>> Phone: (585) 314-6936
>> Email: Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>>>> "The realization came over me with full force that a good part of the remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own programs."
>> -Maurice Wilkes, Memoirs of a Computer Pioneer
>>>> From: Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org>
>> Date: Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:37 AM
>> To: Christopher Rizzo <Christopher.Rizzo at xerox.com>
>> Cc: PWG Workgroup <ipp at pwg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [IPP] Registered media-type values
>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>> Chris,
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2020, at 1:00 PM, Rizzo, Christopher via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear PWG,
>>>>>> PWG 5100.3 section 3.13.2 documents keyword values for media-type. However, this list is incomplete for what our products need to report (for example, differentiation between photo-glossy vs. photo-matte, recycled paper, heavy cardstock vs. light cardstock, pre-punched etc.)
>>>> Correct, we are in the process of revising 5100.3, but all of the media-col content was moved to PWG 5100.7-2019 (JOBEXT 2.0) and the media type names were long ago moved to PWG 5101.1-2013 (MSN 2.0)
>>>>> RFC 8011 leads me to the IANA IPP registry, which leads me to PWG 5100.7, which leads me to PWG 5101.1, which leads me to a list that does not intersect with the list in PWG 5100.3.
>>>> All of the 5100.3 values minus the "screen" types *should* be in 5101.1-2013 - that is where we started when I did MSN 2.0.
>>>>> The document makes reference to RFC2534 for a registry of other types. Where is this registry and how do I access it? Is this separate from the IANA IPP registry? And if the registered keywords are not sufficient are we forced to implement all media-type-xxx as name(MAX) instead of type3 keyword?
>>>> Actually type2 keyword now (type3 was eliminated by IETF), and the IANA IPP registry is now the master registry for media-type values. RFC 2534 was about specifying media for web pages and honestly has no relation to the current CSS media handling.
>>>>> Going further, how does one go about registering new media-type keyword values?
>>>> The same as any other IPP keyword value - send an email to the list with your request and we'll discuss it.
>>>> ________________________
>> Michael Sweet
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> ipp mailing list
>>ipp at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>> ________________________
> Michael Sweet
________________________
Michael Sweet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 874 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20201202/7dda3245/attachment.sig>