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

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

IPP> FW: Media Standardized Names - Units FW: Returned mail: Host unkn own (Name server: .noserver: non-recoverable error)

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 14:32:23 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names"

    More on why the media standard should have more resolution for the mm units.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mark VanderWiele [mailto:markv@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 08:07
    To: Hastings, Tom N
    Cc: Harry Lewis; Mark Hamzy; norbertschade@oaktech.com
    Subject: Re: Media Standardized Names - Units FW: Returned mail: Host
    unknown (Name server: .noserver: non-recoverable error)

    Tom: What you have described is a perfect world where the user or
    application passes back exactly what the printer or printer driver has
    published. In the real world applications save the form from one printer
    driver and attempt to use the same form when printing to another printer
    driver. Therefore, this conversion is common and needs to be reliable.
    This is even more important when the printer driver must determine the
    printable area for the form being used. If we could just take the size and
    fill it life would be easy. But each form may have different unprintable
    margins.

    Also, you mentioned that the spec is for interchange between a printer and
    client. Again, my client may print on printer drivers using different
    locals. It is common for me to receive a job with forms using other local
    units and have the problem of locating an available form.

    We care about the usability of this spec, since we intent to refer to it to
    create some standards for job options on Linux printing. If we don't get
    this right we won't be able to use it.

    Additionally, the reason that we did not get much support for the all in
    one name may be that the parsing was getting too complicated and the string
    was getting too long. What really needs to be done here it to take this
    spec and create an XML DTD for properly combining this information
    including the printers printable area, shortname for selection, and
    information about the current availability of the form. Then we are done.

    Regards,
    Mark VanderWiele
    IBM, Linux Technology Center
    512-838-4779, t/l 678
    MARKV@IBMUS
    email: markv@us.ibm.com

    "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> on 04/20/2001 12:32:06 AM

    To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, Mark VanderWiele/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
    cc:
    Subject: Media Standardized Names - Units FW: Returned mail: Host unknown
          (Name server: .noserver: non-recoverable error)

    Harry and Mark V,

    Could you forward this to Mark H about unit conversion.

    It bombed when I tried to cc him. See attached email.

    Thanks,
    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
    [mailto:Mailer-Daemon@westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 18:42
    To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com
    Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: .noserver:
    non-recoverable error)

    The original message was received at Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:41:29 -0600
    from e3.esmtp.ibm.com [9.14.6.103]

       ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
    <mailto:hamzy@us.ibm.com>

       ----- Transcript of session follows -----
    550 <mailto:hamzy@us.ibm.com>... Host unknown (Name server: .noserver:
    non-recoverable error)

    Message-ID:
    <918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE8504F78AFC@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com>
    From: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    To: "ipp (E-mail)" <ipp@pwg.org>
    Cc: hamzy@us.ibm.com
    Subject: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units
    Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:41:25 -0700
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

    We need to understand better where conversion from inches to mm or vice
    versa might occur.

    As I said in a previous mail message, the Media Size Self Describing Name
    is
    really a keyword, not a name and not a set of attribute values.

    I don't think that we expect that the Media Size Self Describing Name
    tokens
    would be send from client to printer or printer to client using either form
    of units for a given size. In other words, we don't expect that a Printer
    would support both:

       na-letter.8500-11000
       letter.2159-2794

    So only the first value is needed for interoperability between client and
    Printer.

    We probably need to add a note about *not* having both forms for the same
    size (either in the standard or in actual interchange), judging from the
    confusing that this email discussion is showing.

    Instead, these tokens are really keywords and the proper units are sent for
    the size, even if the user is running in the opposite locale. Sure a good
    client will be displaying the sizes to the user in the units that the user
    has set for his locale (inches or mm). But we don't want to double the
    number of tokens, by having both an English version and a metric version.

    Mark indicates that the Driver (or Printer) might keep all dimensions
    internally in only one set of units. That is a good implementation
    technique (but outside the scope of our Media standard). I'd suggest that
    for such an internal implementation is where 100th of mm is a good bet, to
    avoid the round off problem. But our Media Standardized Names is NOT
    specifying how client and printers represent things internally, but how
    they
    interchange between each other. (Similarly, our standard is also *not*
    specifing how a client displays our names to the user).

    I'm not sure we even have a problem for custom sizes, though it isn't so
    clear.
    Two cases:

    a. The Administrator defines the custom sizes that his shop/printer has.
    b. The user defines the custom sizes that he/she wants, whether or not the
    shop/printer has them.

    In the a case, the Administrator would use the units that his users were
    most likely know. He might have to define the same custom size in both
    sets
    of units, if he was in a local that had both English and Metric users. But
    that's a conversion he does when he defines the sizes, its not an algorithm
    performed by some software.

    In the b case, the European user would want to specify the custom size in
    mm
    (and the client converts to 1/10 mm before sending to the Printer), while
    the North American would want to specify the custom size in inches (and the
    client converts to 1/1000 inches before sending to the Printer).

    Again, there doesn't seem to be the need for more precision in the mm case;
    1/10 mm seems sufficient.

    Comments?

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 17:01
    To: ipp (E-mail)
    Subject: FW: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units

    This mail note brings up the conversion issue of the client converting the
    media units from one to the other in order to display the units in the
    locale of the user.

    It was not forwarded to the IPP list.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Mark Hamzy [mailto:hamzy@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 07:18
    To: Mark VanderWiele; hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com; Harry Lewis; Pete
    Zannucci
    Subject: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units

    Here are two examples. There are around 10 or so that I found.
         4.375*254=1111.25
         10.830*254=2750.82

    There is a need to convert from one to another. One case would be that a
    driver keeps one units of measurement internally and converts as needed
    externally. User interfaces should have the ability to let the user decide
    what units of measurement to display in, so you would need to give a letter
    form in metric measurement.
    I think that both could be acceptable as input. For the metric user,
    letter would look like letter.2159-2794. I think that the na- prefix is
    akward. It would be better to place it in front of the dimension. Also,
    it would allow other units of measurement to be used (twips for example).

    Mark

                        Mark

                        VanderWiele To: Mark
    Hamzy/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Pete
                                              Zannucci/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
    hamzy@jumpnet.com
                        04/18/01 06:28 cc:

                        PM From: Mark
    VanderWiele/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
                                             Subject: RE: IPP> Media
    Standardized Names -
                                              Units

    Regards,
    Mark VanderWiele
    IBM, Linux Technology Center
    512-838-4779, t/l 678
    MARKV@IBMUS
    email: markv@us.ibm.com
    ---------------------- Forwarded by Mark VanderWiele/Austin/IBM on
    04/18/2001 06:28 PM ---------------------------

    HARRY LEWIS
    04/18/2001 04:05 PM

    To: Mark VanderWiele/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
    cc:
    From: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
    Subject: RE: IPP> Media Standardized Names - Units

    Mark, I forget who it was in your office who brought this up. Do they care
    to address this?
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------
    ----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 04/18/2001 03:02 PM -----

                        "Hastings, Tom N"

                        <hastings@cp10.es. To: Harry Lewis
    <harryl@us.ibm.com>,
                        xerox.com> RonBergman@aol.com

                        Sent by: cc: ipp@pwg.org

                        owner-ipp@pwg.org Subject: RE: IPP> Media
    Standardized Names -
                                                  Units

                        04/17/2001 06:02

                        PM

    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 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 14:34:00 EDT