Re: RFC: Sorting preferences for MSN 2.1 size tables

Hi Mike,

Media size dimensions seems at first glance to be more intuitive?, but I
think I prefer PWG media size name
as the way users are more likely to search.

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*








*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: [email protected]
<[email protected]>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:51 PM Michael Sweet via ipp <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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