IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard,

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard,

RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 22:34:06 EDT

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "IPP> Re: UPD> Don't stop Do what is necessary"

    I don't know an exact date, but my sense is that the group wants to be
    finished with the UPnP BasicPrint Template at the Portland meeting. I left
    a message with Shivaun and did not get a reply. She is on vacation next
    week and will be back in the office, Monday April 16.

    I'm also taking a vacation next week and will be back in the office on
    Monday April 16.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 15:45
    To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; Bergman, Ron; Manros, Carl-Uno B;
    'RonBergman@aol.com'
    Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'; UPDF WG (E-mail)
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    Tom,

    Do you know when UPnP requires a "published" standard? Or do they
    just need the number to reference?

    I don't know why, if we ever agree on the "all-in-one", that it
    cannot be an appendix to the Media Standard. Just because UPnP
    doesn't require it, they do not have to ue everything in the
    standard.

    If we must publish the document soon, it could be a corrigendum
    (I must look up that word!) and then added when the Media spec
    is re-published (as a -2002).

            Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 3:00 PM
    To: Bergman, Ron; Manros, Carl-Uno B; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
    Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'; UPDF WG (E-mail)
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    I just got off the phone with Shivaun and the plan is still for the UPnP
    BasicPrint Template to use the syntax for Media Size Self Describing Names
    from the PWG Media Names standard and reference it for the list of values.
    As a formality, the UPnP IMAGING WG will vote on the change at the Portland
    meeting, April 23-24. The hope is that the Portland meeting makes the final
    changes to the BasicPrint Template, based on the plug fest experience, what
    various venders actually support, and the PWG Media Names standard.

    Therefore, I think that we should put the "all-in-one" proposal in a
    separate PWG document, so that the UPnP BasicPrint Template has a stable
    document to reference. I'd be glad to continue the discussion about the
    "all-in-one" document in Portland, as well as finish the Media Names
    Standard.

    Ok?

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 14:16
    To: Bergman, Ron; Manros, Carl-Uno B; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
    Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    Ron,

    I will be able to attend the Portland meeting (UPnP, PWG, and IPP FAX), so
    I'll volunteer to lead the discussion and collaborate with Ron after the
    meeting.

    I agree that the "all-in-one" is the real open issue and whether it should
    be included in the current document or made a separate document. I think it
    depends on the schedule from the UPnP group and whether or not they are
    going to use our format. If they need something stable and approved before
    we can agree on the "all-in-one" naming, then we should make the all in one
    a separate document.

    About the appendix to indicate which objects and attributes of existing
    standards are intended to use which Names in our standard, I think it is
    very important to include it in the Media Names standard. So I disagree
    about not including it. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for
    implementers to know which Names we intend as extensions to which objects
    and attributes in these existing standards (RFC 1759, IPP, and ISTO-IEEE
    5100.3). Think about the implementers that aren't even on our mailing
    lists....

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:58
    To: 'Manros, Carl-Uno B'; Hastings, Tom N; Bergman, Ron;
    'RonBergman@aol.com'
    Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    All,

    I agree with Carl-Uno's suggestion for extending the time to
    finish this document. Unfortunately I cannot attend the next
    meeting. So we will need a volunteer to lead the discussion
    and capture the results.

    I believe that the only real open issues concern the
    "all-in-one" format and if it should be included in this
    document or as a separate standard.

    There is also Tom's proposal for another appendix that specifies
    how existing standards are to use the Media standard. I have not
    seen any comment on this so I assume that no one cares either
    positively or negatively. I personally don't believe that this
    is necessary and should not be included. Any one disagree?

            Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:42 AM
    To: Hastings, Tom N; 'Bergman, Ron'; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
    Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    All,

    As a last minute comment I would like to suggest extending the time to
    finish this document to span the next PWG meeting.

    It seems to me that there is still too much discussion and too many lose
    ends to close and publish this document quite yet...

    Carl-Uno

    Carl-Uno Manros
    Manager, Print Services
    Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
    701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
    Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
    Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:14 AM
    To: 'Bergman, Ron'; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
    Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    Ron,

    Unfortunately, I checked the wrong delivery service on the web site when I
    ordered the ASME Y14.1M a week ago Friday and it is being delivered by truck
    from New Jersey to LA and won't arrive until next Tuesday or Wednesday. The
    guy who I could get the numbers over the phone when home early today, so
    we're out of luck. I'm on vacation next week.

    So maybe we add these sizes later, perhaps as a corrigendum or during last
    call.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N
    Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 16:06
    To: Bergman, Ron; Hastings, Tom N; RonBergman@aol.com
    Cc: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    I just ordered a copy from the ASME. It should be here next Tuesday.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
    Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 07:38
    To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; RonBergman@aol.com
    Cc: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    Tom,

    I do not have access to ASME-Y14.1M, so I am unable to do this
    research. Do you have a copy?

            Ron

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 7:14 PM
    To: RonBergman@aol.com
    Cc: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    IPP (RFC2911) has a number of media names that include engineering sizes
    taken from [ASME-Y14.1M]. For some reason we only included them as media
    names (e.g., iso-a1x3-transparent), and not as media size names (e.g.,
    iso-a1x3) in IPP. These size names are:

    iso-a1x3, iso-a1x4
    iso-a2x3, iso-a2x4, iso-a2x5
    iso-a3x3, iso-a3x4, iso-a3x5, iso-a3x6, iso-a3x7
    iso-a4x3, iso-a4x4, iso-a4x5, iso-a4x6, iso-a4x7, iso-a4x8, iso-a4x9

    Should we add them?

    Someone should look at [ASME-Y14.1M] and get the proper length dimensions
    (which aren't in IPP), to go with the width dimensions which are in IPP.

    Thanks,
    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: RonBergman@aol.com [mailto:RonBergman@aol.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:48
    To: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available

    The latest version is now available at:

    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/pwg-media-05.pdf

    The major change is the merging of the envelope sizes
    with the other tables and the separation of the media
    type with the size. In addition I have added the
    definition of a format for custom media types and color
    per a request from Norbert.

    There are still two open issues that I am waiting for
    clarification from Tom.

    1. Tom added a reference [REG] in section 3, but no
    corresponding entry in the References section.

    2. The ABNF for the size name in section 5.1 may be
    incorrect. I am not an ABNF expert, but I believe that
        | "-" | "-" ) should be simply | "-" )

    I will try to attend the IPP teleconference tomorrow
    to discuss any other issues concerning this document.

         Ron Bergman
         Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 22:42:25 EDT