IPP Mail Archive: RE: UPD> Re: IPP> MED - Media Standardi

IPP Mail Archive: RE: UPD> Re: IPP> MED - Media Standardi

RE: UPD> Re: IPP> MED - Media Standardized Names Draft D0.4 down- loaded

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Tue Apr 03 2001 - 15:34:04 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "RE: UPD> Re: IPP> min/max custom size values"

    Michael wrote:

    Should we also then define the front and back coating, as is done
    for the other standards? Or are we just going to define the
    names of the values and leave the attribute naming up to the
    protocol folks?

    I think that we should just define the names and leave the attribute naming
    up to the print protocol folks. We should indicate that these names can
    apply to either or both sides of a medium.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike@easysw.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 19:21
    To: Hastings, Tom N
    Cc: Bergman, Ron; ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman@aol.com';
    Norbert Schade (E-mail)
    Subject: Re: UPD> Re: IPP> MED - Media Standardized Names Draft D0.4
    down-loaded

    "Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
    > ...
    > So I think we should not introduce the notion of roll media and
    > stick with roll media being out of scope.

    I personally disagree with this decision, especially since there
    *are* consumer inkjets today (and for the past several years, in
    fact) that support roll (sometimes called "banner") media of
    more-or-less arbitrary length.

    I understand that some things about roll media may be out of scope
    (cutting, marking, etc.), but to ignore roll media entirely will
    make this specification useless.

    I merely propose that the following media type be added to the
    current specification:

        'roll' - A continuous roll of media whose limits are
                 described by the custom-min and custom-max sizes.

    Again, it is *extremely* important that we support roll media
    types because they are available for many consumer inkjets as
    well as high-end devices. Most of these devices *do* need to
    know that you want to use roll fed media, and if no keyword
    is defined for it then you'll end up with a different name for
    each implementation.

    I agree, however, that things like cutter control and marking
    the page area on the media are beyond the scope of this
    specification, so any mention of roll media should be limited
    to the media type and not any of the other issues.

    > ...
    > So I would not oppose adding MediaCoating to the Media standard,
    > what do others think?

    Should we also then define the front and back coating, as is done
    for the other standards? Or are we just going to define the
    names of the values and leave the attribute naming up to the
    protocol folks?

    > ...
    > Translating the UPnP syntax to our ABNF would become:
    >
    > custom-media-size-max-self-describing-name =
    > [prefix] "custom-max" "." short-dim "-" long-dim
    >
    > custom-media-size-min-self-describing-name =
    > [prefix] "custom-min" "." short-dim "-" long-dim

    Yes, this will work perfectly well.

    -- 
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products                  mike@easysw.com
    Printing Software for UNIX                       http://www.easysw.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 03 2001 - 15:38:26 EDT