[IPP] Re: Question on PWG draft specification mismatch & parsing

[IPP] Re: Question on PWG draft specification mismatch & parsing

[IPP] Re: Question on PWG draft specification mismatch & parsing

Michael Sweet msweet at apple.com
Thu May 5 15:00:03 UTC 2011


I'll look into the issues with RasterView - it is possible I need to update the binaries (they haven't been updated in 4 years) and Ubuntu may not have updated their CUPS with the latest raster fixes, either...

More comments inline...

On May 4, 2011, at 9:42 PM, Roy Samuel wrote:
> ...
> Using the tools/maketestfiles.sh, I was able to create a raster file with magic number, “3SaR” and not “RaS2”, which I don’t think is a PWG raster (?). I used the pstoraster filter. This generated file opens fine with RasterView v1.2.1. , FYI.

"3SaR" is a version 3 CUPS Raster file in little-endian byte order. The "maketestfiles.sh" script doesn't have support for generating version 2 CUPS Raster files in big-endian byte order, as that requires support in Ghostscript (patch to be submitted Real Soon Now), cgpdftoraster, or the rastertopwg filter from CUPS 1.5.

I'll see about adding support for that.

> I was able to “/fetch” a pwg raster file from Google Cloud Print (GCP), by creating a print job from a pdf file. (location of pdf file:ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippraster10-20110327-rev.pdf). I was not able to open this PWG raster file, with RasterView, nor was I able to parse this file completely using the parser that was developed based on PWG draft specifications. (I was able to obtain about 1/6th of the file converted to RGB data successfully, the rest – was not decoded, and appeared as ‘0x00’ for the remainder of the raster data.)

Again, it could be that RasterView needs to be re-built for the latest Ubuntu, perhaps using the latest CUPS raster sources (instead of relying on the system-supplied CUPS).
> Are there different versions of the PWG raster file?

No, although what shows up in the page header has been changing as we continue to define/refine the subset.

> Perhaps GCP is not using the latest PWG specifications?

I can't say - Google would be the one to ask specifically about this, but last time I checked it was working properly (I will see about doing some regular testing with them...)

Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

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/20110505/9c0b4d60/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ipp mailing list