Hi,
A whole lot of IETF protocols (e.g., SLP attribute names) use the
universal IETF convention of 'x-nnn-' as a prefix where 'nnn'
is the vendors decimal enterprise number assigned by IANA.
It's clean and simple and never ambiguous (no two vendors will EVER
have the same enterprise number).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:44 AM
To: carl@manros.com
Cc: Hastings, Tom N; IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: 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 - 13:04:03 EDT