I prefer option a). It is the most concise of all the formats and allows the addition of other dimensional units if they need to be added in the future.
Option b) does not support new dimensional units.
Option c) is too complex in merging the dimension units with the name "class".
Option d) has the same problem as b). Option a) is still better, since it is not limited by dimensional resolution.
Option e) is almost as good as a). It just doesn't "look" as nice.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@CP10.ES.XEROX.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:47 AM
To: IMAGING@FORUM.UPNP.ORG
Subject: MED - telecon to decide on PWG Media Size syntax, Wed, May 2,
10- 12 PDT (1-3 EDT)
Sorry for the posting to the many lists, but Ron and I as editors of the PWG
Media Standardized Names standard want to reach consensus on the syntax for
the dimensions at the telecon tommorrow, Wednesday, May 2.
At last week's UPnP Imaging WG meeting in Portland it was agreed to use the
PWG Media Standardized Names standard for additional value of the MediaType
and MediaSize parameters of the CreateJob action, so we need to finish the
PWG Media standard.
Since there has not been a clear consensus on any method at the PWG Media
meeting last week in Portland and all of the methods have not been
considered together at the same time (in Portland, we only considered
methods b and c below), we'd like to list the alternatives and see if we can
reach consensus. The following syntaxes have been considered or proposed
over time in the following order for the Media Size Self Describing Name:
a. original UPnP/HTML way (but with _ field separator): iso-a4_210x297mm,
na-letter_8.5x11in
b. Maui (D03-D07) way: iso-a4.2100-2970, na-letter.8500-11000
c. Portland decision: iso_a4_210-297, na_letter_8.5-11
d. All 1000ths of mm: iso-a4.210000-297000, na-letter.215900-279400
e. Units as a separate third field: iso-a4_210-297_mm, na-letter_8.5-11_in
Are there any other alternatives that we should add to the list?
If you cannot attend the telecon, please send your rankings of these five
methods to the ipp mailing list (see To: field above which is: ipp@pwg.org),
in order not to flood people's email. In addition to ranking, please
indicate any methods that you feel strongly in favor of or strongly against
as well.
Here are the telecon details:
Time: May 2, 2001 10:00 - 12:00 PST (1:00 - 3:00 EST)
Phone: 1-712-271-0309 (8*534-8273 for Xerox folks)
Passcode: 98099#
If you want to read the details of the PWG meeting last week on the PWG
Media Standardized Names standard, see:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/media-name-minutes-010424.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/media-name-minutes-010424.pdf
Tom and Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 14:36
To: 'IETF-IPP'
Subject: IPP> ADM - IPP Phone Conference on Wednesday, May 2.
All,
We will hold our next IPP Phone Conference on Wednesday, May 2.
Main agenda points is to inform about the outcome of the PWG meeting last
week.
This means that we will review and continue discussion of the Media
document, see input to PWG meeting last week plus minutes distributed by Tom
Hastings last Friday.
We will also review what happened in the IPP Fax meeting.
Here is the dial-in information:
Time: May 2, 2001 10:00 - 12:00 PST (1:00 - 3:00 EST)
Phone: 1-712-271-0309 (8*534-8273 for Xerox folks)
Passcode: 98099#
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Manager, Print Services
Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 16:54:40 EDT