IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units

RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 23:34:02 EDT

  • Next message: RonBergman@aol.com: "IPP> Fwd: RE: definitions for media"

    I agree this is how we arrived at mm/10 but we did this, mainly, as a
    group of printer vendors. Now we are hearing from two groups of driver
    developers (Nobert and my guys in Austin) who think otherwise. These are
    (some of) the folks who will actually USE this information (aka... these
    are our "customers").
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------

    RonBergman@aol.com
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    04/18/2001 05:00 PM

     
            To: <harryl@us.ibm.com>, <robert.herriot@pahv.xerox.com>
            cc: <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, <ipp@pwg.org>
            Subject: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units

     

    Harry,

    When we examined the metric sizes there were only a
    few that had tenths of millimeters. That's why we
    agreed to define the dimension as mm/10. I am not sure
    why the concern for rounding, since if a device does
    convert, it can maintain internally as much precision
    as it desires. As long as there are no metric paper
    sizes with dimensions of mm/100, there should not be a
    problem.

    With inch dimensions, there is always the possibility
    of fractions, such as 1/3. But metric measurements
    appear to be more civilized.

       Ron

    In a message dated Wed, 18 Apr 2001 5:38:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
    "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com> writes:

    << Thanks, Bob.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Herriot, Robert" <Robert.Herriot@pahv.xerox.com>
    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    04/18/2001 02:26 PM

     
            To: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, Harry
    Lewis
    <harryl@us.ibm.com>, RonBergman@aol.com
            cc: ipp@pwg.org
            Subject: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units

     

    Tom,

    I disagree with your reasoning for why 1000th of an inch is closest to
    10th
    of a mm. A 0.1 mm is .0039 inch, or about 4 times less precise than .0010
    inch. But a 100th of a mm is .0004 inch, or about 2.5 times more precise
    than .0010 inch. To me, 2.5 seems like a closer match than 4.
     

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:02 PM
    > To: Harry Lewis; RonBergman@aol.com
    > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units
    >
    >
    > Harry,
    >
    > There are exactly 254 mm in an inch, so the precision is
    > about the same, the
    > inches are about 4 times more precise than the metric units.
    >
    > For example, the two most popular Self Describing Size Names are:
    >
    > The letter size (8.5 inches by 11 inches) used in North America:
    > na-letter.8500-11000
    > The iso A4 size (210 mm by 297 mm) used in metric countries:
    > iso-a4.2100-2970
    >
    > Note that they both have about the same number of digits in
    > each dimension,
    > namely around 4.
    >
    > Also there isn't any need to convert from inches to mm or vice versa,
    > because the paper size is given ONLY in the natural units for
    > the usage. So
    > North American sizes only use 1000ths of inches and aren't
    > converted to mm.
    > Similarly, the non-English sizes are always given in 10ths of
    > mm and aren't
    > converted to inches. Therefore, there is never any rounding
    > errors to worry
    > about.
    >
    > The only rounding that could occur, is if some paper size is
    > actually in
    > some fraction of inches, or mm, such as 200 1/3 mm or 10 1/3
    > inches. But I
    > don't think we have any sizes like that.
    >
    > Ok?
    >
    > Tom
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 15:33
    > To: RonBergman@aol.com
    > Cc: ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units
    >
    >
    > I'm questioning the use of 1/1000 for English but only 1/10
    > for metric.
    > Not only are we loosing precision, but, also introducing
    > rounding errors
    > during conversion from English to metric . I know the printer
    > MIB heritage
    > is 1/1000 English and 1/10 metric... but
    > I think we should try to be more precise in this new media mapping.
    > ----------------------------------------------
    > Harry Lewis
    > IBM Printing Systems
    > ----------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > RonBergman@aol.com
    > Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    > 04/09/2001 02:26 PM
    >
    >
    > To: <ipp@pwg.org>, <upd@pwg.org>
    > cc:
    > Subject: IPP> Fwd: FW: Media Standardized
    > Names, Version D0.6
    > is now available
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Message from "Bergman, Ron"
    > <Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com> on Mon, 9
    > Apr 2001 08:02:14 -0700 -----
    > To:
    > "'RonBergman@aol.com'" <RonBergman@aol.com>
    > Subject:
    > FW: Media Standardized Names, Version D0.6 is now available
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@HITACHI-HKIS.COM]
    > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 8:01 AM
    > To: IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG
    > Subject: Media Standardized Names, Version D0.6 is now available
    >
    >
    > All,
    >
    > The latest draft is now available at:
    >
            ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/pwg-media-06.pdf (or .doc)

    I will not repeat the abstract here or the list of changes. This
    information is
    available within the document, if you are interested. The major change to
    this
    version is the addition of the "Media Finish Names".

    This document will have a final review in the PWG meetings during the week
    of April 23rd and should then be ready for last call.

            Ron Bergman
            Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions

    >>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 18 2001 - 23:38:11 EDT