Hi Mike,
> On Jul 6, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org> wrote:
>> Smith,
>> > On Jul 6, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
> >
> > Signed PGP part
> > Hi there,
> >
> > PWG 5100.7 5.3.1.15 <http://5.3.1.15> and 5.3.1.16 <http://5.3.1.16> define the "media-size" and "media-size-name" members of "media-col" thus:
> >
> > <PastedGraphic-1.png>
> >
> > 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?
>> "media-size" is REQUIRED while "media-size-name" is RECOMMENDED.
>> > 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.
>> The way we defined them allows a Printer to support both attributes, the Client can discover what the Printer supports, and the Client can use whichever supported attribute is best. The only issue with the current wording is that a Printer can't report both member attributes in a media-col-database or media-col-ready collection.
Yep, that's my exact point - we need to change that language so that a Printer can report both.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20210706/b8ebade6/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/b8ebade6/attachment.sig>