attachment-0001
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://290/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Pete,<div><br><div><div>On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:39 AM, "Zehler, Peter" <<a href="mailto:Peter.Zehler@xerox.com">Peter.Zehler@xerox.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: 'Andale Mono'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Xerox’s request from the Face to Face was to add a registered media-type name for cotton and I’d supply the details at a later time. Below are the semantic definitions for archival, bond and cotton media-type values we are proposing. The media weight (i.e. gsm range) can be ignored since the PWG does not include it in “media-type” definitions. I included it because it was available to me from production printing.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>FWIW, we already have "stationery-bond" as a media type, and in general I would prefer to avoid mixing top-level and suffix names. More comments inline below...</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: 'Andale Mono'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">New media-type values to register:</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><b>‘archival’</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>- A<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span>tough, acid-free paper made with an alkaline buffer. Extraneous materials (such as sugars, starches and gums) in the pulp that can cause discoloring and deterioration, are carefully removed. Physical strength for the paper is ensured by using a long, high quality fibers such as cotton or flax that enables it to be usable for long periods.</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>(gsm range 106-169)</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Given that the existing photographic media type are often/typically archival-quality, would it make more sense to treat "archival" as a common suffix for existing top-level types, e.g.:</div><div><br></div><div> cardstock-archival</div><div> labels-archival</div><div> stationery-archival</div><div><br></div><div>???</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: 'Andale Mono'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><b>‘bond’</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>- A better quality grade of paper that is stronger and more durable than ‘stationary’ (gsm range 81-130)</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>As I mentioned above, we already have stationery-bond.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: 'Andale Mono'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><b>‘cotton’</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>- A rag pulp based paper which is made up of cotton fibers (gsm range 75-90)</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Do we need a top-level for this too? "stationery-cotton" (and, if you think it is necessary, "cardstock-cotton") would seem to capture the existing usage for this type of media.</div><div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; border-spacing: 0px; "><div>__________________________________________________</div><div>Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair<br></div></span>
</div>
<br></div><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>