I agree that you need all of the information together that an implementation
supports for a sensible selection by the user. The problem is: Can we
agree on what the information is, or does it vary so much from
implementation to implementation, that we can only hope to agree to a core
set and leave the rest to implementation?
Unfortunately, leaving very much to implementation, means that a client is
unlikely to be able to work with implementations from different vendors,
especially if the client has to localize the fields for the user.
So, what is your favorite list of media characteristics with values that
you'd like to see in a standard?
Is there a small subset that we can agree to now and work on additional
fields in a separate standard that augments what we can agree to for the
Media Names standard now?
I was think out loud about different ways that we could try to put all of
the fields in the All In One Name Appendix. I agree with you that we should
put into the Media Names Appendix only what we can agree to now and work on
augmenting that in a future standard when we have more time. So lets not
put anything into the current Appendix that we might regret in the future
P.S. Plug for the IEEE-ISTO 5100.3 IPP Production Printing Attributes - Set1
standard. It allows the user to select from 12 media fields using the
"media-col" (collection) Job Template attribute. See
http://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.3.pdf, .doc, .rtf.
From: Mark VanderWiele [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 06:58
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: UPD> Don't stop Do what is necessary
Don: If you want to create a simple unusable standard than do it. Reality
is that media description and selection only makes sense if you have all
the information presented in a logical single description (including
IBM, Linux Technology Center
512-838-4779, t/l 678
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 13:58:34 EDT