IPP Mail Archive: IPP> RE: Some comments on pwg-media-10.pdf

IPP Mail Archive: IPP> RE: Some comments on pwg-media-10.pdf

IPP> RE: Some comments on pwg-media-10.pdf

From: Bergman, Ron (Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com)
Date: Wed Aug 08 2001 - 21:36:20 EDT

  • Next message: newsreport@stockrage.com: "IPP> SPECIAL INVESTMENT REPORT on CBYI"


    Your comments are very good and almost all will result in changes to the
    document. Your review of the document is very much appreciated. See my
    remarks below, indicated by ">>Ron:". Look for a new draft soon.

            Ron Bergman
            Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Don Levinstone [mailto:don@mail.wm.sps.mot.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:43 AM
    To: 'Ron Bergman'
    Cc: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com
    Subject: Some comments on pwg-media-10.pdf

    Hi Ron.

    We corresponded back in May, about the 0.5 version of the Media
    Standardized Names spec.

    I've just read the 1.0 spec, dated July 16, 2001, and have a few
    comments to share. Please feel free to use them or lose them as you
    see fit!

    1. Section 4.1, line 220:

       "Example, a media of the color" -> "Example, media of the color"

       [I consider "media" to be plural, in agreement with
       http://www.m-w.com, 1st definition of "medium", which states in
       definition 2b:
         "b plural usually media ...
         (4) : something (as a magnetic disk) on which information may be
         stored" ]
    >>Ron: Document will be modified as suggested.

    2. Section 5.1, line 231 (and in table column headers, etc.)

        "Self Describing" -> "Self-Describing"

        To me, this is a compound adjective, which should be hyphenated as
        per the IEEE Style Manual:

        "13.7 Hyphenation
        In most cases, compound adjectives (such as fiber-optic cable,
        lead-acid batteries, power-operated valve assemblies) should be
        hyphenated. IEEE Standards Project Editors check documents for
        consistency of hyphenation; when the working group has a decided
        preference (such as life cycle process), that preference will be
        enforced. The use of hyphenated multiple adjectives (such as
        compressed-air-actuated power tools) should be limited to cases
        where such use is necessary to ensure comprehension."
    >>Ron: Document will be modified as suggested.

    3. Section 5.1.4 (lines 273-277) indicate that an identical size shall
        never appear with different units. This is good, but it does beg
        the question of what should be done in the future for sizes such
        as "folio" and "executive" which appear to have multiple definitions.
        Should the spec not specify a convention, e.g., "Some common
        paper names such as folio, quarto, foolscap, and executive are
        found in practice to be associated with multiple physical paper
        sizes. In such a case, one of the sizes, preferably the most
        common, may be identified with the short name (such as
        "om_folio_210x330mm"), and unique hyphenated identifiers should be
        created for the other sizes (such as "om_folio-sp_215x315mm") .
    >>Ron: Document will be modified as suggested.

        I pulled the example of "folio-sp" from Table 7. I wonder, BTW,
        if the "sp" stands for "Spanish" or "Spain"? If so, I wonder
        if instead of "sp", it should be "es" in accordance with
        IANA country codes or language assignments? Or is "folio-sp"
        already in common use?
    >>Ron: I believe that "sp" indicates special.

        See http://www.twics.com/~eds/paper/papersize.html#trad for
        at least 4 different definitions of quarto & octavo. None of
        these sizes is the same as the current "na_quarto_8.5x10.83in" !!!
        My point is not necessarily to add all the possible obscure sizes
        to the current document, but, rather, to establish a clear
        convention to allow them to be added in an orderly manner as needed.
    >>Ron: This looks like a good reference, but I will only add additional
    sizes specifically requested.
        BTW: I wonder if perhaps the same issue probably arose, but was
        evaded, when someone decided to add the US "executive" as
        "na_executive_7.25x10.5in" but the Japanese "executive" as
        "jis_exec_216x330mm". (Or is this size truly known just as "exec"
        in Japan? I don't have access to an official JIS list.)
    >>Ron: This name came from a list from IBM. It was shown as jis exec.

        Here's what Adobe said about Executive in the PPD spec 5003,
        Version 4.3 of 9 February 1996:
          'The size Executive varies by as much as 1/2 inch across devices.
          Most devices offer only one version of Executive. However, if a
          device offers more than one size of Executive, these sizes can be
          differentiated by a serialization extension and a translation
          string that denotes the exact size. For example, a PPD file for a
          Level 1 device might have:
            *PageSize Executive.1/7.5 x 10 in: "7.5x10inchtray"
            *PageSize Executive.2/7.25 x 10.5 in: "7.25x10.5inchtray"
            *PageSize Executive.3/7.5 x 10.5 in: "7.5x10.5inchtray" '

        I.e., its seems like a good idea to leave room for other

    4. Section 5.2 line 295

           "custom_max_18-36in and custom_min_2-3in" ->
           "custom_max_18x36in and custom_min_2x3in"

        I.e., shouldn't the dashes be "x" similar to non-custom sizes?
    >>Ron: Document will be corrected.

    5. Table 3 (line 302)

       In ALIAS column, I suggest:
            5a. Add "Comm 10 (envelope)" for na_number-10_4.125x9.5in
                ("Comm10" is Adobe's name, and seems to me to be
                a relatively common alias.)
            5b. "6x9-envelope" -> "6x9 (envelope)"
                "c5-envelope" -> "c5 (envelope)"
                [For parallelism with 7x9 and a2 ...]
    >>Ron: Document will be modified as suggested.

    6. Table 4 (line 307)

       In ALIAS column, I suggest:
            * Add "a0" for iso_a0_841x1189mm, for parallelism with a1, a2,
    >>Ron: Document will be modified as suggested.

    7. Table 5 (line 310)

       In ALIAS column, I suggest:
          7a. "oufuku (postcard)" -> "oufuku hagaki (reply postcard)"
              as in http://www.twics.com/~eds/paper/dtpofficepaper.html
              (search for "oufuku" in this page). "oufuku" means
              "round trip" in Japanese. BTW: The PPD spec calls this
              "DoublePostcard" .
    >>Ron: Document will be modified as suggested.

          7b. "Kahu (envelope)" -> "kahu (envelope)".
              (I see no reason for this to be capitalized, since Japanese
              has no such concept. BTW: Is this a real Japanese size?
              "kahu" doesn't appear in the PPD spec or in the relatively
              comprehensive envelope list at
              http://www.twics.com/~eds/paper/env.html#jfuutou )
    >>Ron: Document will be corrected.

       In SELF-DESCRIBING NAME column:
          7c. "jpn_chou2_111.1x146mm" -> "jpn_chou2_119x277mm" (???)

             http://www.twics.com/~eds/paper/env.html#jfuutou shows
             Chou 2 as being a JIS size, 119x277 mm. I didn't find
             any other references to it on the web... Do you have
             an attestation for 111.1x146mm?
    >>Ron: This size also come from the IBM list. It was called "Japanese #2".
    The list also has jpn_chou3 listed as "Japanese #3", so I added it as
    jpn_chou3. This may be a mistake and unless someone can provide a
    clarification, it should be removed.

       Formatting of tables 5-7:

         7d. The underlines in the Self-Describing name column
             of Tables 5, 6, and 7 didn't show up when I printed the PDF
             file. They *do* show up in PDF reader, but appear to be
             touching the lower line of the table ruling (as compared
             to Table 4 for instance). Perhaps the bottom margins of the
             cells are inconsistent in the Word doc?
    >>Ron: I will add a space below the text on each line to eliminate this

    8. Table 6 (line 311)

          * Are juuro-ku-kai, pa-kai, and dai-pa-kai really Chinese
              envelope sizes? If so, why do their self-describing
              names start with "om"? Do you have any information
              as to where the names come from?
    >>Ron: These sizes are available on a Fuji Xerox printer. I was not sure
    of the origin, so the prefix "om" is used. They are paper sizes, not

            I asked a Chinese (mainland) friend, who replied:

            (1) I think, the name of the "pa-kai", "dai-pa-kai" and
              "juuro-ku-kai" are not Ping Ying (pin yin) in Mandarin. I am
              not sure whether they are Taiwan's Ping Ying?
            (2) From the "kai" at the end of each name, I guess that means
               "k" as those in other paper size name, i.e. "prc-32k".
            (3) Our Chinese book normally is 16K and 32k. The "K" in
               Chinese means a large paper (which has some kinds of paper
               size) has been half folded several times and results into a
               number of equal portions. So 16K means a large paper has
               been half-folded 4 times and results in 16 equal portion.
               So size of each page of a book in 16K is one of the
               above 16 equal portion.
            (6) When I was in China (before Aug,1996), I knew normally we
               (in University) only use A4 and B5 in printer.
             Above info maybe not accurate, you should only make it as
             references. If I have any info, I will let you know ASSP.

    9. Table 7, line 314:

            "om_italian_100x230mm" -> "om_italian_110x230mm"
            (The PPD spec shows 110 mm. Do you know 100 mm to be correct?
            I couldn't find any other references on the web...)
    >>Ron: This appears to be a typo, the document will be corrected.

    10. Section 7, line 333:

            * "In the interium" -> "In the interim"
    >>Ron: Document will be corrected.
    11.Section 7, line 337:

            * "Request are to be" -> "Requests are to be"
    >>Ron: Document will be corrected.

    12. Section 13, line 450

            * "If a class or name field isn't recognized, it will be
                 displayed it as is, perhaps separated by a space" ->

            * "If a class or name field isn't recognized, it will be
                 displayed as is, perhaps with underlines replaced
                 by spaces"

            I.e., remove extraneous "it" before "as is", and clarify
               what's being replaced or separated.
    >>Ron: Document will be modified as suggested.

    I hope these comments are helpful.


    Don Levinstone INTERNET: don.levinstone@motorola.com
    Director of Engineering or don@mail.wm.sps.mot.com

      WaveMark Solutions
      A division of Motorola
      70 Blanchard Rd.
      Burlington, MA 01803
      phone: 1-781-852-2765 (Direct dial)
      fax: 1-781-270-0193

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 08 2001 - 21:31:26 EDT