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: Fri May 11 2001 - 01:12:04 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "IPP> RE: Comments on Media Size Objectives"

    I think the intent, all along, could be simply stated as "convey the
    STANDARD media name and its size".

    So we would start with the notion... convey "LETTER". But someone might
    not know that LETTER is 8.5x11 inches - thus the quest for a "self
    describing name".

    We could ask.. who cares about a name if we know the size. Good question.
    Actually, we need to know the size, printable area, loaded or not etc.
    before we can do anything useful with the media. The fact that we want to
    know the name supports the argument that there must be some "user
    friendly" characteristic we are trying to preserve. Thus the energy that
    sustains the never ending cycle of "it's for machines"... no... "it's for
    humans"... (it's a desert topping, it's a floor wax... Jay... are you
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    05/10/2001 03:49 PM

            To: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
            cc: don@lexmark.com, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "'Harry
    Lewis'" <harryl@us.ibm.com>, carl@manros.com, "Hastings, Tom N"
    <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG, ipp@pwg.org
            Subject: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives


    if the intent is to convey the media size to the app why do we care about
    names etc. Why isnt the size just sent ("8.5x11in"). Why does the media
    attribute have to include a name at all - are lexmark inches somehow
    from kinko inches?

    What is the difference between us-a4.8x11in and wizo-vend-foo-bang.8x11in
    if the
    purpuse of this spec is to convey the size of the media. It seems that the
    intent is not to convey the size of the media but the name of the size too
    this is a quite different thing (the requirements dont say anything about
    conveying the name of the size).

    "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> on 05/10/2001 02:21:03 PM

    To: don@lexmark.com, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
    cc: "'Harry Lewis'" <harryl@us.ibm.com>, carl@manros.com, "Hastings, Tom
          <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG, ipp@pwg.org
          Paul Moore/AUCO/US)

    Subject: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives

    I agree with Don that a more user-friendly vendor extension mechanism
    be used, such as vend-lexmark, or custom-lexmark, if we need a printer
    vendor extension mechanism at all.

    A formal extension mechanism that the IETF uses is important for names in
    which the entire semantics is *implied* by the name, such as a MIME type.
    However, for our Media Size Self Describing Names the entire semantics
    (i.e., dimensions) of the size name is actually contained in the name

    A more fundamental question is why would a Printer vendor that has a
    media size, not want to put it into our Media Standard now? We'd just add
    it with no vendor name needed.

    If the printer vendor invents the size after our standard is published,
    we've got to have a way to add/register more standard size names anyway,
    the Printer vendor just gets the new size registered with the PWG using
    normal standard syntax without the vendor needing to be identified in the

    Only, if a vendor really wants his name in the media name, do we need to
    decide how to do that. We can decide then whether this company name is a
    new Naming Authority field or this company name should be part of the
    Name field. For example, if Lexmark has a new size, say playing-card,
    they really want to have the Lexmark name appear, the name could be
    registered as:

       lexmark_playing-card_2x4in (If we add Lexmark as a Naming Authority)
       na_lexmark-playing-card_2x4in (If Lexmark wants to make the name be
    under the na Naming Authority).


    -----Original Message-----
    From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
    Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 13:27
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'Harry Lewis'; carl@manros.com; Hastings, Tom N;
    IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG; ipp@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives


    The problem is that if the driver has no knowledge of a new standardized
    size and it tries to parse and display the name, the end user will have
    absolutely no idea that "vend-641" is Lexmark defined paper size. He
    able to do something with "vend-Lexmark"

    * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
    * Chair, Printer Working Group *
    * Chair, IEEE MSC *
    * *
    * Director, Alliances & Standards *
    * Lexmark International *
    * 740 New Circle Rd *
    * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
    * 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) *

    "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald%sharplabs.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on
    12:55:01 PM

    To: "'Harry Lewis'" <harryl%us.ibm.com@interlock.lexmark.com>,
    cc: "Hastings, Tom N"
          ipp%pwg.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
    Subject: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives


    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).

    - 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


    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"
            cc: <IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG>, <ipp@pwg.org>
            Subject: RE: IPP> Comments on Media Size Objectives


    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
    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.


    > -----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
    > 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 : Fri May 11 2001 - 01:13:58 EDT