I respectfully disagree with your whole premise.
The PWG collaborated very successfully with Adobe
to develop PWG PDF/is - a subset and a profile of
While PDF/1.7 later became the ISO 32000 standard,
in 2004 the PWG was delighted to collaborate with our
lead editor Rick Seeler from Adobe on PDF/is.
I see no reason to treat PWG CUPS Raster any
Names of attributes (prefixes) are probably suitable
But the idea that PWG should only specify a PWG raster
format from scratch would set a bad precedent.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP 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 Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Petrie, Glen <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>wrote:
> I have reviewed the new proposed standard and have two concerns with
> respect to the "IPP Subset of CUPS Raster"
>>>> 1. It was my understand that a IEEE ISTO PWG Standard must not be the
> standardization of product or a specific company's implementation
>> a. Thus, there is a great need for a PWG IPP Image format or PWG IPP
> Raster format; however, I believe that specifying it as a subset of the
> specific open-source or vendor product is not in line with PWG standards
> practices. This is not to say that is could not have a normative or
> informative reference to a specific open-source or vendor product but it
> should stand on its own with ties to a specific open-source or vendor
> product. Also, it should not use attribute names or variables that are
> identified with a specific open-source or vendor product.
>> b. I am aware of other entities that wish to use an established format
> (i.e. CUPS Raster 2); but if PWG is going to standardize it, it should be
> PWG entity.
>> 2. The specific open-source or vendor product that is being discussed
> is CUPS. So, the other concern with a standard that directly references
> CUPS is that CUPS is licensed by/under Apple and GPL.
>> a. I have not heard or know that Apple has provided a Letter of
> Assurance on the use by others for the use a subset of CUPS definition.
> While, I believe that Apple would provide LOA upon request.
>> b. On the other, if any or part of the content PWG is proposing to use
> from CUPS was/is part of CUPS that was/is under GPL before Apple’s
> ownership; then there is the question if GPL license applies. Major print
> vendors may be at risk of either having to release their source code that is
> associated with CUPS content or even being sued by GPL proponents.
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
> Michael Sweet
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:10 PM
> To: ipp at pwg.org> Cc: cloud at pwg.org> Subject: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP
> Raster)specification posted
>>>> I have posted a new version of the IPP Raster specification at:
>>>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippraster10-20110126.docx>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippraster10-20110126.pdf>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippraster10-20110126-rev.pdf>>>> This version incorporates all of the feedback from the IPP telecon
> including the rename from PWG to IPP...
>> 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.
>> ipp mailing list
>>ipp at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>> --
> 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>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>
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...