Tom,
This originally was extensively discussed. My recollection is:
1.This is interpreter addressability not marker addressability. That
is, it refers to the smallest unit for which the interpreter can
define color. Therefore, it is unclear that multiple markers need be
considered. And yes, it was considered that an interpreter did not
need to have the same addressability as the marker(s) which is why
there are two sets of objects.
2. The value of -1 and the comments about no restriction were added
specificaly at the request of Adobe for use in reference to
PostScript.
3. By my understanding of English (which I agree may not be
everyone's), the descriptions refer to the maximum addresability not
the current addressability. I don't understand why that needs
clarification.
Hope this helps.
Bill Wagner, DPI
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: PMP> Questions about clarifying prtInterpreterFeedAddressabi
Author: Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com> at Internet
Date: 1/30/97 5:47 PM
RFC 1759 (and our most recent Internet Draft) have the following:
prtInterpreterFeedAddressability OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Integer32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The maximum interpreter addressability in the feed
direction in 10000 prtMarkerAddressabilityUnits (see
prtMarkerAddressabilityFeedDir ) for this interpreter.
The value (-1) means other and specifically indicates
that the sub-unit places no restrictions on this parameter."
::= { prtInterpreterEntry 8 }
prtInterpreterXFeedAddressability OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Integer32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The maximum interpreter addressability in the cross feed
direction in 10000 prtMarkerAddressabilityUnits (see
prtMarkerAddressabilityXFeedDir) for this interpreter.
The value (-1) means other and specifically indicates
that the sub-unit places no restrictions on this
parameter."
::= { prtInterpreterEntry 9 }
I thought we had agreed to add clarifications:
1. That maximum means the highest that the interpreter can support in
that direction, not the current value.
2. That the maximum applies to the first marker, if the device has multiple
markers of different resolution.
In addition, we have additional questions:
3. What about interpreters that don't
put any constraints on the addressibility, such as PostScript.
Should PostScript use the value -1? Or should PostScript just
report the maximum that the marker can provide?
4. Also PCL has 7200th of an inch as the units in which documents can
specify addressibility. Should PCL be 7200th of an inch for a 600 dpi
marker, or 600, if the PCL intepreter supports the full capability of
the marker? In other words, is the prtInterpreterAddressibility[X}Feed
objects specifying the units in which addessibility may be specified
in a document or are they trying to specify the addressibility
of the interpreter in combination with the marker?
Some interpreters may not be able to provide the maximum addressibility
that the marker provides, in a particular direction. In that case, these
values would be less than the corresponding
prtMarkerAddressibility[X]FeedDir values.
The Glossary defines addressibility in terms of the marker:
Addressability - on the marker, the number of distinctly setable marking
units (pels) per unit of addressability unit; for example, 300 dots per inch
is expressed as 300 per 1000 Thousandths Of Inches and 4 dots per millimeter
is 4 per 1000 Micrometers. Addressability is not resolution because marks
that are one addressability position apart may not be independently
resolvable by the eye due to factors such as gain in the area of marks so
they overlap or nearly touch.
Thanks,
Tom