IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives

IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Thu May 10 2001 - 00:13:02 EDT

  • Next message: Carl-Uno Manros: "RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives"

    18 objectives for a "2-bit" "name" field!


    1. We have a compromise, not an optimization (for machine parsing).
       Suggest the concept of "facilitate" be stressed over "optimize".

    4. Edit - "Only include the name in its native units" (delete "each").

    5. Dump this goal!! (additional units) This has been a rat trap!
       The compromise syntax we are developing is too stressed by this
       goal. Save this for a full fledged schema.

    6. I think the notion of "self describing" has been misinterpreted.
       Some feel a description should contain more (margins etc.). Some
       think "self describing" means easy to read and distinguish. It
       might be better to simply state... "The "Standard Media Name" will
       contain both a "Name" part and a "Dimension" part."

    7,8,9. I think these can all be replaced by simply extending the above
           (6) to read "The "Standard Media Name" will contain 3 parts,
            1. Naming Authority
            2. Name
            3. Dimension

    10. Given (6,7,8,9 - above) this is just stating the obvious. This
        is a simple list. If we find stuff we've missed, we help ourselves add
        it. If we missed a galaxy or universe our there, somewhere... (i.e.
        an entire naming authority) or if we want to establish a new name
        space, we can readily do so.

    On and On... I don't know about the rest. Glazed donuts come to mind.
    Or... a real schema development effort!

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 10 2001 - 00:14:38 EDT