Re: Printers using "media-size-name" instead of "media-size"

"Kennedy, Smith \(Wireless & IPP Standards\) via ipp" <[email protected]> Tue, 6 Jul 2021 20:57:34 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.ipp
Message-ID	<[email protected]>


> On Jul 6, 2021, at 2:54 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) via ipp <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Mike,
> 
>> On Jul 6, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Michael Sweet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Smith,
>> 
>> > On Jul 6, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & IPP Standards) via ipp <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Signed PGP part
>> > Hi there,
>> >
>> > PWG 5100.7 5.3.1.15 <http://5.3.1.15/> and 5.3.1.16 <http://5.3.1.16/> define the "media-size" and "media-size-name" members of "media-col" thus:
>> >
>> > <PastedGraphic-1.png>
>> >
>> > What isn't clear to me is whether a Printer will be running a risk if it decides to implement "media-size-name" instead of "media-size", since Clients aren't required to support it?
>> 
>> "media-size" is REQUIRED while "media-size-name" is RECOMMENDED.
>> 
>> > If that is the case, then I'm not sure how a Printer could go about supporting "media-size-name" without risking interoperability issues with Clients.
>> 
>> The way we defined them allows a Printer to support both attributes, the Client can discover what the Printer supports, and the Client can use whichever supported attribute is best. The only issue with the current wording is that a Printer can't report both member attributes in a media-col-database or media-col-ready collection.
> 
> Yep, that's my exact point - we need to change that language so that a Printer can report both.

I'll file an erratum for this in a few minutes.

> 
> 
>

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)