Michael wrote:
Should we also then define the front and back coating, as is done
for the other standards? Or are we just going to define the
names of the values and leave the attribute naming up to the
protocol folks?
I think that we should just define the names and leave the attribute naming
up to the print protocol folks. We should indicate that these names can
apply to either or both sides of a medium.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sweet [mailto:mike at easysw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 19:21
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: Bergman, Ron; ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail); 'RonBergman at aol.com';
Norbert Schade (E-mail)
Subject: Re: UPD> Re: IPP> MED - Media Standardized Names Draft D0.4
down-loaded
"Hastings, Tom N" wrote:
> ...
> So I think we should not introduce the notion of roll media and
> stick with roll media being out of scope.
I personally disagree with this decision, especially since there
*are* consumer inkjets today (and for the past several years, in
fact) that support roll (sometimes called "banner") media of
more-or-less arbitrary length.
I understand that some things about roll media may be out of scope
(cutting, marking, etc.), but to ignore roll media entirely will
make this specification useless.
I merely propose that the following media type be added to the
current specification:
'roll' - A continuous roll of media whose limits are
described by the custom-min and custom-max sizes.
Again, it is *extremely* important that we support roll media
types because they are available for many consumer inkjets as
well as high-end devices. Most of these devices *do* need to
know that you want to use roll fed media, and if no keyword
is defined for it then you'll end up with a different name for
each implementation.
I agree, however, that things like cutter control and marking
the page area on the media are beyond the scope of this
specification, so any mention of roll media should be limited
to the media type and not any of the other issues.
> ...
> So I would not oppose adding MediaCoating to the Media standard,
> what do others think?
Should we also then define the front and back coating, as is done
for the other standards? Or are we just going to define the
names of the values and leave the attribute naming up to the
protocol folks?
> ...
> Translating the UPnP syntax to our ABNF would become:
>> custom-media-size-max-self-describing-name =
> [prefix] "custom-max" "." short-dim "-" long-dim
>> custom-media-size-min-self-describing-name =
> [prefix] "custom-min" "." short-dim "-" long-dim
Yes, this will work perfectly well.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw.com
Printing Software for UNIX http://www.easysw.com