On May 3, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
> Hi George and Mike,
>> I *strongly* disagree with dropping "HP" and "Adobe" from the
> ASN.1 comments for these new registrations.
Ira, I'm not suggesting that we drop "HP" or "Adobe", just that we adopt the format used by the current entries (which puts the vendor name *after* the format name) for consistency. I absolutely agree that we need to still have the vendor listed since HP and Adobe control/own the corresponding formats.
> Ever since RFC 1759, the company that defined each printer
> language has been named explicitly in all ASN.1 comments.
> This is *very* important in order to distinguish from (possible
> future) registrations of other vendor-extended variants.
>> Look at all of our recent XPS, OpenXPS, JDF, JMF, PPML, etc.
> IANA registrations as well as the Printer MIB v1/v2 legacy.
>> If Ricoh wishes, they can request registration of vendor variants
> of PCL (that include "Ricoh" in both the enum tags and ASN.1
> comments).
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com> winter:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> 734-944-0094
> summer:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434
>>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> That's probably appropriate; Ira, let's normalize the PCL and PostScript
>> descriptions to match the format of the current registrations:
>>>> langPCL(3), -- PCL. Starting with PCL version 5,
>> -- HP-GL/2 is included as part of the
>> -- PCL language.
>> -- PCL and HP-GL/2 are registered
>> -- trademarks of Hewlett-Packard
>> -- Company.
>>>> langPS(6), -- PostScript (tm) Language
>>>> -- Postscript - a trademark of Adobe
>> -- Systems Incorporated which may be
>> -- registered in certain jurisdictions
>>>> Looks like the existing langPDF and the new langPDF* definitions are already
>> using the same conventions, so just the new PCL and PS descriptions need
>> updating.
>> On May 3, 2010, at 1:49 PM, George Liu wrote:
>>>>> I think we are stuck treating these as languages/language families.
>>>> I'd like to suggest change the description for langPCL3, langPCL3GUI,
>> langPCL5e, langPCL5c. Rename "HP Printer Command Language xxx" to "Printer
>> Command Language xxx"
>>>> George
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com]
>> Sent: Mon 5/3/2010 11:15 AM
>> To: George Liu
>> Cc: Ira McDonald; pwg-announce at pwg.org>> Subject: Re: [Pwg-Announce] Call for Review of langPDF/PS/PCL variants for
>> IANAPrinter MIB (30 April 2010)
>>>> On May 3, 2010, at 11:10 AM, George Liu wrote:
>>> Has PCL-XL been left out intentionally?
>>>> Yes, because it is already registered in RFC 3805:
>>>> langPCLXL(47), -- Not in RFC 1759
>> -- Printer Control Language. Extended
>> -- language features for printing, and
>> -- printer control.
>> -- Tammy Ferguson (HP)
>> -- and Binnur Al-Kazily (HP)
>> -- Technical reference manual: None
>> -- Hewlett-Packard Co.
>>>>>>>> There're PCL-XL 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. Microsoft GPD based mini drivers is
>>> able to generate PCL-XL.
>>>>>> George
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:47 AM
>>> To: George Liu; Ira McDonald
>>> Cc: pwg-announce at pwg.org; Michael R Sweet
>>> Subject: Re: [Pwg-Announce] Call for Review of langPDF/PS/PCL variants
>>> for IANAPrinter MIB (30 April 2010)
>>>>>> Hi George,
>>>>>> Right - we're only talking about the graphics drawing aspect
>>> of these printer languages.
>>>>>> The IEEE 1284 Device ID format only supports a list of
>>> printer languages - it cannot be extended (interoperably)
>>> for these other device-specific aspects.
>>>>>> The PWG cannot actually extend the capabilities keywords
>>> or their syntax in the base IEEE 1284 spec.
>>>>>> So the scope of comments we're requesting is only to identify
>>> any other common variants of PCL (for example) that should
>>> be registered with IANA.
>>>>>> All of these are enumerated values in the single Printer MIB
>>> integer object prtInterpreterLangFamily. Other objects such
>>> as prtInterpreterLangLevel and prtInterpreterDescription can
>>> be used by vendors to distinguish vendor-unique features.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>> - Ira
>>>>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>>> Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
>>> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
>>> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>>>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>>>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>>> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>>> winter:
>>> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
>>> 734-944-0094
>>> summer:
>>> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
>>> 906-494-2434
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM, George Liu <george.liu at ricoh-tech.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Unlike PDF, which is a document format, Postscript and PCL/PCL-XL are
>>> PDL, which means printer-device specific.
>>>>>>>> A Tray-1 PCL command for HP printer means Bypass Tray, but means the
>>> first tray under the printer engine for Ricoh printer.
>>>> Also, in Postscript, there are many vendor specific Postscript
>>> setpagedevice commands.
>>>>>>>> How will the new command set definition handles this case?
>>>>>>>> Are we only taking about the graphics drawing part not the device
>>> control part?
>>>> Or are we making "langPCL5e" only for a specific vender?
>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>>>>>>>
________________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.