On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:12 AM Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org> wrote:
>> Benjamin,
>> > On Oct 19, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Gordon <bmgordon at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:37 AM Michael Sweet via ipp <ipp at pwg.org> 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.
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. 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.
Thanks,
Benjamin