>From the point of view of UPDF the consens described below is the way to go.
1. Keep the media type out of the Media size standard. Remove duplicates. We
don't have problems with using 'monarch' and '10x13' in the size names.
'monarch' is a useful and familiar word for a specific size.
2. We would appreciate another small standard for media types.
As we are already implementing the Media size standard into UPDF, we are in
need for some type ID anyhow in the corresponding structure for media types.
I'm not a color expert, but in case ICC profiles have a list of predefined
media type names, that's worth considering as a source as well.
3. We are not in need for a media name, as proposed in Tom's notes.
A media can have a number of attributes including size and type.
In our system we need an unique ID for any media, but that is up to the
editing developer. He/she may use Tom's way to create an ID or simply use a
number or a more simple string.
The eventual UI string will be different anyhow.
Regards
Norbert Schade
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
To: "ipp (E-mail)" <ipp at pwg.org>
Cc: "pwg (E-mail)" <pwg at pwg.org>; "UPDF WG (E-mail)" <upd at pwg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 6:07 PM
Subject: UPD> RE: PWG> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media type
of " envelope"
> Ron and I had a phone discussion and have come up with the following
simple
> suggestions for this issue about envelope media type in the PWG Media Size
> standard:
>> 1. We agreed that most sizes are not intended for envelopes, some are
> intended for envelopes, and some are intended for both stationery and
> envelopes.
>> 2. The Media Size standard should not mention media types at all. So the
> exception about envelope media type in section 1.1 Scope will be removed.
> We suggest that a separate short PWG standard for Media Types would be
good,
> that the Printer MIB, UPnP Printing, and IEEE-ISTO PWG 5100.3 Production
> Printing standards can cite for their Media Type attribute values.
>> 3. The '-envelope' will be removed from all Media Size Names in the
> standard, and any resulting duplicate names will be eliminated. The
> envelope tables will be merged with the other tables. As has been done
for
> postcards, the Alias (common name) column will have "(envelope)" in
> parenthesis added in order to indicate that the size is intended for
> envelopes. We didn't discuss how to distinguish between the sizes, such
as
> na-monarch, that are intended only for envelopes and those, such as
> na-10x13, which are intended for envelopes and other media types.
Thoughts?
>> Comments?
>> Thanks,
> Tom
>> P.S. Ron can't send to the PWG DLs, so I'll copy this thread to them as
> well.
>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 15:19
> To: don at lexmark.com> Cc: pwg (E-mail); ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
> Subject: UPD> RE: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media
> type of " envelope"
>>> Don,
>> I agree with you NOT re-order any Media Self Describing Media Name (Media
> Size Name for short) from the order that is in the D0.3 draft.
>> What I was talking about is, if we want to also add Media Type names to
the
> standard as a separate concept (also needed by UPnP and the Printer MIB),
we
> could do that. Then we could also define an additional syntax for Media
> Names (used by IPP "media" attribute) which puts the Media Type Name in
> front of the Media Size Name (same order). These Media Type Names would
NOT
> be enumerated in combination with all the possible sizes, but would just
be
> a format. Please see the rest of the attached mail message that talks
about
> the problem of the current draft that mixes Media Type and Media Size
Name,
> but only for envelope Media Types.
>> Tom
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 14:36
> To: Hastings, Tom N
> Cc: pwg (E-mail); ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media type of
> " envelope"
>>>>> All:
>> I am opposed to ANY reordering of the self describing name.
>> prefix - medianame . widthDim - lengthDIM is the right format.
>> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
> * Chair, Printer Working Group *
> * Chair, IEEE MSC *
> * *
> * Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax) *
> **********************************************
>>>>>> "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings%cp10.es.xerox.com at interlock.lexmark.com> on
> 03/05/2001 01:18:35 PM
>> To: "pwg (E-mail)" <pwg%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>, "ipp (E-mail)"
> <ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>, "UPDF WG (E-mail)"
> <upd%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com>
> cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: RE: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media type of
"
> envelope"
>>>> Just to be clear, neither alternatives (a) or (b) that I suggested in the
> original mail change the current D0.3 syntax for the Media Size Self
> Describing Name format which is (using the notation in the D0.3 version):
>> prefix - mediaName . widthDim - lengthDim
>> Alternative (b) would add a syntax for Media Names which includes the
Media
> Type Name followed by the Media Size Self Describing Name. I also change
> the suggestion for the Media Name syntax slightly to put the 'na-' as part
> of the Self Describing Media Size Name field, instead of in front of
> everything, i.e.,:
>> mediaTypeName . prefix - mediaName . widthDim - lengthDim
>> instead of:
>> prefix - mediaTypeName . mediaName . widthDim - lengthDim
>>> ISSUE: Should we use real ABNF for defining the syntax?
>>> Examples:
>> Media Size Self Describing Name (from current draft and with either
> alternative a or b):
>> iso-a4.2100-2970
> iso-b4.2500-3530
> na-letter.8500-11000
>> Media Name (if alternative b is added to the draft):
>> stationery.iso-a4.2100-2970
> envelope.iso-b4-2500-3530
> stationery.na-letter.8500-11000
> transparency.na-letter.8500-11000
>> Tom
>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 21:58
> To: pwg (E-mail); ipp (E-mail); UPDF WG (E-mail)
> Subject: IPP> PWG Media Size Standardized Names ISSUE: media type of
> "envelope"
>>> For discussion about the "PWG Media Size Draft standard", D0.3, on the
> mailing list and the UPDF and IPP WG meetings, Monday, March 5, and
> Wednesday-Thursday, March 7-8. Please discuss this fundamental issue at
the
> upcoming meetings. Someone take good notes, since neither Ron nor I will
be
> able to attend.
>> Summary of issue:
>> Problem:
> The current draft contains sizes that are independent of media type,
except
> for envelopes. For each of the envelope sizes the draft includes two
names,
> one without '-envelope' and one with '-envelope' with the same dimensions
> and says that the names with '-envelope' also imply a media type of
> envelope.
>> Possible Solutions:
> Either:
>> a. "Media Size Standardized Names" - current title
> The standard should be completely independent of media type but indicate
> that the size names do NOT imply media type. However, the standard should
> include all sizes, even those that are primarily suited for a single media
> type, such as envelopes, as well as sizes for any other media types, such
as
> stationery, labels, business cards, postcards, etc.
>> b. "Media Size, Media Type, and Media Standardized Names"
> Same as (a), but add (1) Media Type Names to the standard as a separate
part
> and (2) a way to combine Media Type Names and Media Size Names into Media
> Names using '.' as a field separator.
>> We have at least six other standards that will use the results of this PWG
> standard. Here is how these other standards would use alternatives (a)
and
> (b):
>> Media Size Media Type Media
> Name Name Name
> (a and b) (b) (b)
> Printer MIB:
> prtInputMediaName (App C) x
> prtInputMediaType x
> Appendix B x
>> IPP:
> "media" attribute x could x
>> PWG IEEE/ISTO 5100.3:
> "media-type" in "media-col" x
>> IPP FAX:
> "media" attribute x
>> UPnP:
> MediaType parameter x
> MediaSize parameter x
>> Wireless:
> hopefully the same as UPnP
>>>> Detailed Discussion:
> The D0.3 Draft has the following paragraph in the Scope section
>> 1.1 Scope
> This document defines media sizes only. Other media attributes such as
> color, type, or weight are not included. One exception is the inclusion of
> the media type of 'envelope.' Since many envelope sizes are unique and
> envelopes have very special physical characteristics which requires
special
> handling and printing formats, this attribute is included with the size.
>>> I suggest that having this exception for envelopes will cause confusion.
> The control of media type should be independent wherever Media Size Names
> are used. For example, I might want to specify a stationery media type
that
> is any envelope size in order to proof my envelope printing. Also I might
> want to specify an envelope media to be a stationery media size.
>> For protocols in which the Media Type and Media Size are independent, such
> as the Printer MIB and UPnP, having this exception for envelope sizes will
> cause problems. Which takes precedence, if say, the Media Type is
> 'stationery' but the Media Size Name is, say 'iso-b4-envelope.2500-3530'?
>> For protocols where the same attribute can take on Media Names and Media
> Size Names, such as IPP, having Size Names that are the same as Media
Names
> will be ambiguous.
>> In IPP, the "media" Job Template attribute takes three different kinds of
> keyword names (in the following order in Appendix C):
>> Media Names:
> 'iso-b4-white': Specifies the ISO B4 white medium: 250 mm x 353 mm
> 'iso-b4-envelope': Specifies the ISO B4 envelope medium
>> Input Tray Names:
> 'top': The top input tray in the printer.
>> Media Size Names:
> 'iso-b4': Specifies the ISO B4 size: 250 mm by 353 mm as defined in
> ISO 216
>> This issue does point out a bug in IPP Appendix C names for the North
> American keywords (but isn't for ISO and JIS names). The same keywords
> appear twice with different meanings:
>> Media Names:
> 'na-10x13-envelope': Specifies the North American 10x13 envelope
> medium
> 'monarch-envelope': Specifies the Monarch envelope
> 'na-number-10-envelope': Specifies the North American number 10
> business envelope medium
>> Media Size Names:
> 'na-10x13-envelope': Specifies the North American 10x13 size: 10
> inches by 13 inches
> 'monarch-envelope': Specifies the Monarch envelope size (3.87 x 7.5
> in)
> 'na-number-10-envelope': Specifies the North American number 10
> business envelope size: 4.125 inches by 9.5 inches
>> The bug is that both the Media Names and the Media Size Names have the
> '-envelope' component in them, meaning that they are duplicate names. The
> '-envelope' should be removed from the IPP North American Media Size Name
> keywords in order to eliminate the duplicate keywords that mean different
> things. The ones with '-envelope' mean an envelope medium, the ones
without
> '-envelope' mean just the size. How the media type is determined depends
on
> the IPP implementation (and possibly other attributes such as the
> "media-type" member attribute of the "media-col" Job Template attribute
(see
> PWG Production Printing standard, for example: IETF-ISTO 5100.3 available
> at:
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5100.3.pdf).
>>> Back to the PWG Media Size Name standard D0.3:
> There is some duplication of semantics (if we agree NOT to include the
> envelope media type semantics and stick to size names only) between:
>> Table 3.3 North American Standard Sheet Media Sizes AND
> Table 3.4 North American Standard Envelope Media Sizes
>> and complete duplication of the ISO b and c series between:
> Table 3.5 ISO Standard Sheet Media Sizes AND
> Table 3.6 ISO Standard Envelope Media Sizes
>> where the only difference in the Self Describing Name is whether or not
> there is an '-envelope' component.
>> So whether we choose Alternative (a) or (b), delete Table 3.4 and Table
3.6.
> For those entries in Table 3.4 and Table 3.6 that don't have any
> corresponding size in Table 3.3 or Table 3.5, move the name to 3.3 or 3.5,
> either removing the '-envelope' or change it to 'envelope-size'. For
> example, move 'na-personal-envelope.3625-6500' to 3.3 and change its name
to
> either 'na-personal.3625-6500' or 'na-personal-envelope-size.3624-6500',
> depending on which the group thinks is clearer. Same for
> 'na-number-11-envelope.4500-10375', etc.
>> I don't know about the Japanese and Chinese envelope sizes.
>>>> Alternative (b) (add Media Type Names and Media Names)
>> Alternative (b) needs all the same changes as alternative (a). In
addition
> we would add a list of Media Type Names. Lets start with the names from
the
> Printer MIB, Internet FAX, and IEEE-ISTO 5100.3 PWG Production Printing
> which includes some Media Type Names needed by UPnP:
>> stationery
> transparency
> envelope
> envelope-plain
> envelope-window
> continuous
> continuous-long
> continuous-short
> tab-stock
> pre-cut-tabs
> full-cut-tabs
> multi-part-form
> labels
> multi-layer
> screen
> screen-paged
> photographic
> cardstock
> other
>> The syntax for Media Names could be:
>> [na-]MediaTypeName.MediaSizeName.WidthDim-LengthDim
>> Media Names wouldn't need to be added as additional tables or table
entries
> in the standard, but just a rule for generation from the MediaTypeName and
> the MediaSizeName values.
>> Comments?
>> Thanks,
> Tom
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:50
> To: ipp (E-mail); pwg (E-mail)
> Subject: PWG> FW: Update to Media Sizes Document (version D0.3)
>>> I've created a sub-directory for the PWG media-sizes project and copied
D0.3
> version into it:
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/pwg-media-size-03.pdf>> I've also copied the versions of Jim Lo's original document in .doc, .pdf,
> and .html:
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/papersizes-ipp-gpd-ppd.html>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/papersizes-ipp-gpd-ppd.doc>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/papersizes-ipp-gpd-ppd.pdf>> Also two RFCs the deal with media from the Internet Fax group:
>> RFC 2879 - Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax (V2)
> RFC 2534 - Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/rfc2879.txt>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/rfc2534.txt>> Tom
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman at HITACHI-HKIS.COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 07:53
> To: IMAGING at FORUM.UPNP.ORG> Subject: Update to Media Sizes Document (version D0.3)
>>> I did not receive any comments on the D0.2 version, so this update only
> includes the missing paragraphs plus some corrections i discovered.
>> I hope this can be reviewed in the UDPF and/or the IPP meetings in Tampa.
> Since I am not able to attend these meetings, someone needs to take good
> notes.
>> Ron Bergman
> Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
> <<pwg-media-size-03.pdf>>
>>>>>>