I don't know an exact date, but my sense is that the group wants to be
finished with the UPnP BasicPrint Template at the Portland meeting. I left
a message with Shivaun and did not get a reply. She is on vacation next
week and will be back in the office, Monday April 16.
I'm also taking a vacation next week and will be back in the office on
Monday April 16.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 15:45
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; Bergman, Ron; Manros, Carl-Uno B;
'RonBergman@aol.com'
Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'; UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
Tom,
Do you know when UPnP requires a "published" standard? Or do they
just need the number to reference?
I don't know why, if we ever agree on the "all-in-one", that it
cannot be an appendix to the Media Standard. Just because UPnP
doesn't require it, they do not have to ue everything in the
standard.
If we must publish the document soon, it could be a corrigendum
(I must look up that word!) and then added when the Media spec
is re-published (as a -2002).
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 3:00 PM
To: Bergman, Ron; Manros, Carl-Uno B; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'; UPDF WG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
I just got off the phone with Shivaun and the plan is still for the UPnP
BasicPrint Template to use the syntax for Media Size Self Describing Names
from the PWG Media Names standard and reference it for the list of values.
As a formality, the UPnP IMAGING WG will vote on the change at the Portland
meeting, April 23-24. The hope is that the Portland meeting makes the final
changes to the BasicPrint Template, based on the plug fest experience, what
various venders actually support, and the PWG Media Names standard.
Therefore, I think that we should put the "all-in-one" proposal in a
separate PWG document, so that the UPnP BasicPrint Template has a stable
document to reference. I'd be glad to continue the discussion about the
"all-in-one" document in Portland, as well as finish the Media Names
Standard.
Ok?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 14:16
To: Bergman, Ron; Manros, Carl-Uno B; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
Ron,
I will be able to attend the Portland meeting (UPnP, PWG, and IPP FAX), so
I'll volunteer to lead the discussion and collaborate with Ron after the
meeting.
I agree that the "all-in-one" is the real open issue and whether it should
be included in the current document or made a separate document. I think it
depends on the schedule from the UPnP group and whether or not they are
going to use our format. If they need something stable and approved before
we can agree on the "all-in-one" naming, then we should make the all in one
a separate document.
About the appendix to indicate which objects and attributes of existing
standards are intended to use which Names in our standard, I think it is
very important to include it in the Media Names standard. So I disagree
about not including it. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for
implementers to know which Names we intend as extensions to which objects
and attributes in these existing standards (RFC 1759, IPP, and ISTO-IEEE
5100.3). Think about the implementers that aren't even on our mailing
lists....
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:58
To: 'Manros, Carl-Uno B'; Hastings, Tom N; Bergman, Ron;
'RonBergman@aol.com'
Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
All,
I agree with Carl-Uno's suggestion for extending the time to
finish this document. Unfortunately I cannot attend the next
meeting. So we will need a volunteer to lead the discussion
and capture the results.
I believe that the only real open issues concern the
"all-in-one" format and if it should be included in this
document or as a separate standard.
There is also Tom's proposal for another appendix that specifies
how existing standards are to use the Media standard. I have not
seen any comment on this so I assume that no one cares either
positively or negatively. I personally don't believe that this
is necessary and should not be included. Any one disagree?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:42 AM
To: Hastings, Tom N; 'Bergman, Ron'; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
All,
As a last minute comment I would like to suggest extending the time to
finish this document to span the next PWG meeting.
It seems to me that there is still too much discussion and too many lose
ends to close and publish this document quite yet...
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 11:14 AM
To: 'Bergman, Ron'; 'RonBergman@aol.com'
Cc: 'pwg@pwg.org'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
Ron,
Unfortunately, I checked the wrong delivery service on the web site when I
ordered the ASME Y14.1M a week ago Friday and it is being delivered by truck
from New Jersey to LA and won't arrive until next Tuesday or Wednesday. The
guy who I could get the numbers over the phone when home early today, so
we're out of luck. I'm on vacation next week.
So maybe we add these sizes later, perhaps as a corrigendum or during last
call.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 16:06
To: Bergman, Ron; Hastings, Tom N; RonBergman@aol.com
Cc: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
I just ordered a copy from the ASME. It should be here next Tuesday.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:Ron.Bergman@Hitachi-hkis.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 07:38
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; RonBergman@aol.com
Cc: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
Tom,
I do not have access to ASME-Y14.1M, so I am unable to do this
research. Do you have a copy?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 7:14 PM
To: RonBergman@aol.com
Cc: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: IPP> RE: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
IPP (RFC2911) has a number of media names that include engineering sizes
taken from [ASME-Y14.1M]. For some reason we only included them as media
names (e.g., iso-a1x3-transparent), and not as media size names (e.g.,
iso-a1x3) in IPP. These size names are:
iso-a1x3, iso-a1x4
iso-a2x3, iso-a2x4, iso-a2x5
iso-a3x3, iso-a3x4, iso-a3x5, iso-a3x6, iso-a3x7
iso-a4x3, iso-a4x4, iso-a4x5, iso-a4x6, iso-a4x7, iso-a4x8, iso-a4x9
Should we add them?
Someone should look at [ASME-Y14.1M] and get the proper length dimensions
(which aren't in IPP), to go with the width dimensions which are in IPP.
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: RonBergman@aol.com [mailto:RonBergman@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:48
To: pwg@pwg.org; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: PWG> Media Names Standard, Version D0.5 Available
The latest version is now available at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/media-sizes/pwg-media-05.pdf
The major change is the merging of the envelope sizes
with the other tables and the separation of the media
type with the size. In addition I have added the
definition of a format for custom media types and color
per a request from Norbert.
There are still two open issues that I am waiting for
clarification from Tom.
1. Tom added a reference [REG] in section 3, but no
corresponding entry in the References section.
2. The ABNF for the size name in section 5.1 may be
incorrect. I am not an ABNF expert, but I believe that
| "-" | "-" ) should be simply | "-" )
I will try to attend the IPP teleconference tomorrow
to discuss any other issues concerning this document.
Ron Bergman
Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 06 2001 - 22:35:53 EDT