Re: RFC: Sorting preferences for MSN 2.1 size tables[EXTERNAL]
Uli Wehner via ipp <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <BY5PR17MB3303AA3A2DAB7930FE31942FA4499@BY5PR17MB3303.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> |
Smith,
I prefer this way: Sort by the PWG media size name ("na_letter_8.5x11in" comes after "na_legal_8.5x14in")
But neither offends my sensibilities. I think people are more likely to know the media name than the dimensions. This may be different for photo printers.
Regards
Uli Wehner
-----Original Message-----
From: ipp <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Sweet via ipp
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 2:51 PM
To: PWG IPP Workgroup <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Sweet <[email protected]>
Subject: [IPP] RFC: Sorting preferences for MSN 2.1 size tables[EXTERNAL]
All,
This question came up during our review of the MSN 2.1 at the face-to-face meeting. Basically, the current media size tables have inconsistent ordering. The original specification (MSN 1.0) sorted the sizes by width and then length. The 2.0 version added tables that are sorted by the media size name.
What ordering do people prefer for media sizes? Sort by the PWG media size name ("na_letter_8.5x11in" comes after "na_legal_8.5x14in") or by dimensions ("na_letter_8.5x11in" comes *before* "na_legal_8.5x14in")?
Please let me know your preference by June 15, 2023 so I can put out a new draft of the MSN specification.
________________________
Michael Sweet