[IPP] Requested Additions to PWG Raster

[IPP] Requested Additions to PWG Raster

Petrie, Glen glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com
Fri Apr 22 19:08:27 UTC 2011

Uncle !!!!!!!!!


It is an optional field and completely testable in an interoperability






From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 11:52 AM
To: Petrie, Glen; Ira McDonald
Cc: Michael Sweet; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] Requested Additions to PWG Raster


Hi Glen,

I agree with Mike here in objecting to registering these fields.

PWG standards are supposed to only contain fields/attributes
that *could* be tested in an interoperability event.  It's not
plausible that a typical streaming client would know the size 
when it's very large (when the feature's useful), so such a
feature's not interoperable or verifiable.

- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
May to Christmas:
  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Petrie, Glen
<glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com> wrote:

As stated below, I do understand objection to adding the field.  I would
to hear from other PWG members on the addition of these fields.






From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at apple.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:20 AM
To: Petrie, Glen
Cc: ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [IPP] Requested Additions to PWG Raster


On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Petrie, Glen wrote:



	[gwp] The important case is the size of the compressed raster
data. The decompressed size is recorded only if the raster is

	[gwp] I agree that some (a few or a lot) of implementation may
not provide the information but as I said, I am requesting that the
assignment be made and those who can (want to) may record the size


It really isn't a matter of "may not provide", in most cases clients
(and printers) simply can't buffer hundreds of megabytes of raster data.
I can add the field, but since most producers of PWG Raster will not be
able to supply the compressed size of the raster no printer will be able
to depend on it anyways, so IMHO it is best to have the printer, if it
is going to do any local processing of full page images, use its own
optimal internal storage format than try to gerry-rig something into the
format that just won't work.


[gwp] As I stated in my original request, I am not worried about the
printer, it will accept the streaming input just fine.  I want the size
information for navigation of a many page raster without having to
decompress pages in a serial manor.   I am not jerry-rigging anything.
I do not understand your comment "that just won't work".  It works fine.
In fact, I wrote a routine that will find the size-only of compressed
page by running the compression routine without storing the compressed
data.  I don't understand your objection to assigning the field.



	I would actually prefer to flag the file as version 3 which is
an uncompressed CUPS Raster with the version 2 page header. And in the
case of local processing, you'll likely want to use native word order
(another feature of CUPS Raster that we are not bringing along for PWG


	[gwp] Do you mean big/little-endian?  I am nothing requesting
the word ordering flag (value) be used.  The current specification is


My main point was that if you are concerned about having a standard
representation for intermediate data, CUPS Raster already provides that.
If you are trying to tweak PWG Raster for use as an internal
representation format then I'd rather not put that in the standard since
internal formats are OOS for any PWG standard.


Would it be sufficient to document an uncompressed version of PWG Raster
(with the "RAS3" file header) and then mark the native word order
support as out-of-scope for the spec but something that might be used


[gwp] I believe the RAS3 is for the entire PWG Raster file.  I am
requesting a flags (value) for individual pages.  


Since the format does not support this, I would be opposed to adding
something that would be used only for an internal representation of a
PWG Raster file.


[gwp] Again, I do not understand your objection. 


Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

ipp mailing list
ipp at pwg.org


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20110422/b88d1945/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ipp mailing list