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
To
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <pwg at pwg.org>
cc
<ipp at pwg.org>
Subject
RE: 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
----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20050328/de3b9f7c/attachment-0001.html