Hi Mike,
Media size dimensions seems at first glance to be more intuitive?, but I
think I prefer PWG media size name
as the way users are more likely to search.
Cheers,
- Ira
*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*
*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*
*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*
*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
<blueroofmusic at gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:51 PM Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> wrote:
> All,
>> This question came up during our review of the MSN 2.1 at the face-to-face
> meeting. Basically, the current media size tables have inconsistent
> ordering. The original specification (MSN 1.0) sorted the sizes by width
> and then length. The 2.0 version added tables that are sorted by the media
> size name.
>> What ordering do people prefer for media sizes? Sort by the PWG media
> size name ("na_letter_8.5x11in" comes after "na_legal_8.5x14in") or by
> dimensions ("na_letter_8.5x11in" comes *before* "na_legal_8.5x14in")?
>> Please let me know your preference by June 15, 2023 so I can put out a new
> draft of the MSN specification.
>> ________________________
> Michael Sweet
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20230604/523c4aef/attachment.html>