Re: Duplicate media sizes in registry...

Michael Sweet via ipp <[email protected]> Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:12:24 -0400

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

Benjamin,

> On Oct 19, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:37 AM Michael Sweet via ipp <[email protected]> wrote:
> All,
> 
> Zdenek Dohnal (Red Hat) and Benjamin Gordon (Google) have been updating CUPS to support newer registered media size names from the IANA IPP registry.  During the review process we discovered that several duplicate sizes have been registered:
> 
>   iso_id-3_88x125mm vs. iso_b7_88x125mm (registered by Canon in 2018)
>   om_postfix_114x229mm vs. iso_c6c5_114x229mm (both defined in 5101.1!)
>   prc_3_125x176mm vs. iso_b6_125x176mm (both defined in 5101.1!)
>   prc_5_110x220mm vs. iso_dl_110x220mm (both defined in 5101.1!)
>   prc_10_324x458mm vs. iso_c3_324x458mm (both defined in 5101.1!)
> 
> We found one more:
> oe_photo-s10r_10x15in (from https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/registrations/ippwg-media-size-20160229.txt) is a duplicate of na_10x15_10x15in.

Right, and that one can be removed/obsoleted as well.

> ...
> Should they be marked as obsolete or duplicate instead of removed entirely?  If there are other implementations that are using the non-preferred sizes, it would be helpful to have a pointer to what the replacement should be.

I can mark them as obsolete, but really they shouldn't have been created in the first place based on the long-standing registration rules in PWG 5101.1...

(FWIW, the size name is really just for human consumption - the dimensions on the end are the only part that should matter to a printer and even for localization CUPS looks up the dimensions to find the localized name to use...)

________________________
Michael Sweet

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

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