[IPP] Redundancies between IPP attributes and PWG-raster header

[IPP] Redundancies between IPP attributes and PWG-raster header

Anton Thomasson antonthomasson at gmail.com
Thu Oct 15 19:23:32 UTC 2020


Hi

I am the developer of a very simple printing app for Sailfish OS that goes
by the name "SeaPrint".

>From my experimentation with raster formats, I have found that there are
several IPP attributes that describe things that need/should be set in the
(PWG-)raster header.
It has even been the case that setting attributes on IPP itself that are in
agreement with the value in the raster header, jobs would not be accepted
by my printer(s).

Is there any reason/background to this that would be good to know in order
to understand it better?

I cannot seem to find anything conclusive on whether a well-behaved app
should indeed have to do this (although it seems reasonable), nor exactly
which attributes may not appear on IPP when using PWG-raster.
For simple things like Copies, Sides etc. the mapping is pretty
self-explanatory, and the table in 4.3 of the PWG raster spec makes sense.
But for media-col for example, it is not as obvious how to split up its
components (or indeed if some things that can appear in it need to be left
in IPP as it has no corresponding header attribute).

Do you have any pointers to more information on this?

Br,
Anton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20201015/54141337/attachment.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list