Ron,
I think you are right. There is no need for the Media Name Standard to say
anything about what an implementation should do if the Media Size Name
(e.g., na-letter), has dimensions that don't agree with the standard. So
ignore my suggestion.
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:09
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; ipp (E-mail)
Cc: UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: UPD> MED - Minor issue: which wins if dimensions are
correct for the m edia size name?
Tom,
I am not sure why this is an issue. If we have defined a name in the
specification with this mismatch, it must be corrected. If a name
mismatch occurs in a custom name, it is up to the person that creates
the custom name to ensure it is what he wanted.
If you are referring to a corrupted name, then it is up to the receiver
to determine the appropriate action, which should be specified by the
protocol (UPnP, IPP, etc). If the device does not have a sizes table
to compare, then all it can do is accept the size. If it can validate,
then it should reject.
I don't agree a statement is needed in the PWG Media specification for
this case.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 3:08 AM
To: ipp (E-mail)
Cc: UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: UPD> MED - Minor issue: which wins if dimensions are correct
for the m edia size name?
Ron,
Minor issue: which wins if dimensions are correct for the media size name?
For example, for the Media Size Self-Describing Name is iso-a4.100-200, is
the size ISO A4 or 10 by 20 mm? I suggest that the dimensions take
precedence over the name. So we need to add such a statement in the
document.
Comments?
Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 22:34:04 EDT