Thanks Bill,
I wonder if we should actually add some comment about the -1, such as:
"e.g., PostScript".
How about PCL:
>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?
Thanks,
Tom
At 23:44 01/30/97 PST, Bill Wagner wrote:
> 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
>>>>>