Benjamin,
> On Oct 24, 2022, at 7:42 PM, Benjamin Gordon <bmgordon at chromium.org> wrote:
> ...
> I found another case that seems borderline: iso_id-1_53.98x85.6mm and
> om_card_54x86mm (both added in
>https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/registrations/canon-media-20180329.txt)
> are technically not the same size, but the dimensions differ by <0.5mm
> in both dimensions.
I am inclined to deprecate om_card in favor of the ISO size.
> CUPS treats them as the same size by default
> because of this. Any thoughts on whether the CUPS behavior is correct
> here? If it is then this is another duplicate.
"Correct" vs. "pragmatic". They are technically different sizes, but given the production tolerances for this kind of media I suspect they are interchangeable.
________________________
Michael Sweet