Hi there,
PWG 5100.7 5.3.1.15 and 5.3.1.16 define the "media-size" and "media-size-name" members of "media-col" thus:
What isn't clear to me is whether a Printer will be running a risk if it decides to implement "media-size-name" instead of "media-size", since Clients aren't required to support it? If that is the case, then I'm not sure how a Printer could go about supporting "media-size-name" without risking interoperability issues with Clients.
Am I reading this correctly? If I'm not, I think we have some work to do on this because I don't know how "media-size-name" provides value given that set of normative requirements.
Thanks for any thoughts,
Smith
/**
Smith Kennedy
HP Inc.
*/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20210706/4f5d75fc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 148855 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20210706/4f5d75fc/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20210706/4f5d75fc/attachment.sig>
