IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives

RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Thu May 10 2001 - 10:43:59 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives"

    Well, again, I think it is challenging the elasticity of the main goal
    which was to establish one authoritative list of STANDARD media sizes. In
    an XML encoding I can picture distinguishing media name as belonging to a
    "standard" vs. "private" naming authority. If we MUST accommodate this
    goal in the compromise syntax, I guess I suggest a convention of the
    "class" or "naming authority" such as

    "vend-xxx"

    where xxx could be the name of a vendor or customer.

    Again, I believe it would be better to keep the media names in this list
    we are collecting STANDARD and fairly SIMPLE.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------

    "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl@manros.com>
    05/09/2001 10:35 PM
    Please respond to carl

     
            To: "Harry Lewis" <harryl@us.ibm.com>, "Hastings, Tom N"
    <hastings@CP10.ES.XEROX.COM>
            cc: <IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG>, <ipp@pwg.org>
            Subject: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives

     

    Harry,

    I think I have to agree with you on most points. In particular I like your
    suggestion to change the name as the current name carries too much
    semantic
    connotations, which can easily be misinterpreted.

    The one important issue I still see is whether we want to lay down some
    rules for how to add "private names" which are not in our list, be it by a
    vendor or by end customers.

    Carl-Uno

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry
    > Lewis
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:13 PM
    > To: Hastings, Tom N
    > Cc: IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG; ipp@pwg.org
    > Subject: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives
    >
    >
    > 18 objectives for a "2-bit" "name" field!
    >
    > Comments...
    >
    > 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
    > registry
    > 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 - 10:45:42 EDT