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

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

IPP> RE: Comments on Media Size Objectives

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri May 11 2001 - 01:25:00 EDT

  • Next message: Tony Hammer: "IPP>"

    Sorry, I'll be on a plane Monday during the call. I've tried to make my
    position clear. I think we need to simplify the objectives for the naming
    syntax and pursue a more robust schema to resolve our ongoing issues.

    If we end up with "units" in the simple name... I won't croak... but,
    given that 98% of what we are doing is compiling a list of existing media
    names/sizes and 1.999% is maybe allowing for additions to the list... I'd
    say there is a very slim chance that we will encounter other than inches
    or mm.
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    "Bergman, Ron" <Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com>
    05/10/2001 01:10 PM

            To: "'Harry Lewis'" <harryl@US.IBM.COM>, IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG
            Subject: RE: Comments on Media Size Objectives



    Requirement #5 is the source of our current disagreement. If we agree
    only inches and millimeters are the required units, now and for ever more,
    believe that this can be quickly resolved!

    One of the requirements that we missed, but is defined in the document...
    This provides an extension of media size names for legacy standards
    MIB and IPP) as well and an extension to the legacy names (size
    that can be used by lightweight protocols such as UPnP. A future encoding
    (XML) will be necessary to provide a robust media description.

    Should be an interesting discussion on Monday. Hope you can join.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@US.IBM.COM]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:13 PM
    Subject: 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 : Fri May 11 2001 - 01:26:26 EDT