Add missing registered media sizes to PWG mapping table #501
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yetamrra Thank you for your patch! I've checked the PR with:
- http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipp-registrations/ipp-registrations.xhtml
- http://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/candidates/cs-pwgmsn10-20020226-5101.1.pdf
- http://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/candidates/cs-pwgmsn20-20130328-5101.1.pdf
- https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/registrations/ippwg-media-size-20160229.txt
- https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/registrations/canon-media-square-20180618.txt
- https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/registrations/hp-media-sizes-20210302.txt
- https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/registrations/canon-media-20180329.txt
- https://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/2016/018826.html
and found two discrepancies in the PR. IMHO there are typos in the standards, so I've filed the issue https://www.pwg.org/dynamo/issues.php?U115+P-1+S-2+I0+E0+Z19+Q to confirm it.
Once we know whether it is an issue with standard or not, we can follow up on this.
zdohnal
added
enhancement
|
@zdonal I responded to the errata you filed against 5101.1 - size names all need a trailing unit so the proposed changes are correct and look good. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@michaelrsweet thx! Then the PR looks good to me, I'll let the test run and then merge and create PR for libcups.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing the approval - the test suite failed due new media sizes were marked as duplicates of existing:
Duplicate size test: FAIL
oe_photo-s10r_10x15in and na_10x15_10x15in have the same dimensions (25400x38100)
prc_3_125x176mm and iso_b6_125x176mm have the same dimensions (12500x17600)
om_postfix_114x229mm and iso_c6c5_114x229mm have the same dimensions (11400x22900)
prc_10_324x458mm and iso_c3_324x458mm have the same dimensions (32400x45800)
prc_5_110x220mm and iso_dl_110x220mm have the same dimensions (11000x22000)
All media sizes are defined in IANA IPP registrations, so there probably has to be an adjustment of the testsuite - @michaelrsweet is it expected to skip those duplicate sizes during testing or should we allow only the one size with the same dimensions?
|
@zdohnal There should only be one size name per physical size (per PWG 5101.1), so that sounds like the PWG (and more specifically me since I am the maintainer of the registry) needs to look for duplicates and weed them out. |
|
I caught the iso_id-3 duplicate but missed those others. I can remove the duplicates and push an updated patch. Is it safe to assume that the ISO and NA sizes are preferred? |
|
@yetamrra Yes, ISO and NA are preferred over national or "other" prefixes. Thanks! |
|
Another note: |
A number of sizes that were added to ipp-registrations.xml after the initial PWG 5101.1-2002 document are not currently mapped. When these sizes are mapped through a generated IPP Everywhere PPD and back to IPP media size names, they get changed into auto-generated self-describing names instead of the official registered names. This change adds all the non-duplicate missing names. Most of them don't have official MediaOptions keywords, so the PPD names are mapped to dimensions. With the updated mapping table, all of these sizes can roundtrip correctly. This also fixes a missing unit and an incorrect name in two existing mappings for oe photo sizes. These entries were not added due to being duplicates of existing sizes: * iso_id-3_88x125mm duplicates iso_b7_88x125mm. * oe_photo-s10r_10x15in duplicates na_10x15_10x15in. * prc_3_125x176mm duplicates iso_b6_125x176mm. * om_postfix_114x229mm duplicates iso_c6c5_114x229mm. * prc_10_324x458mm duplicates iso_c3_324x458mm. * prc_5_110x220mm duplicates iso_dl_110x220mm. Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gordon <bmgordon@chromium.org>
Whoops, not looking close enough. |
|
OK, I replaced the duplicate entries with comments indicating the correct names. @michaelrsweet the duplicate entry is |
@michaelrsweet I've read both versions of PWG 5101.1 - 2002 and 2013 - do you know which section mentions this rule (one size name for physical size)? IMO it is a rule worthy of remember and my guts tell me someday I will have to reference this rule in the standard. |
A number of sizes that were added to ipp-registrations.xml after the initial PWG 5101.1-2002 document are not currently mapped. When these sizes are mapped through a generated IPP Everywhere PPD and back to IPP media size names, they get changed into auto-generated self-describing names instead of the official registered names.
This change adds all* the missing names. Most of them don't have official MediaOptions keywords, so the PPD names are mapped to dimensions. With the updated mapping table, all of these sizes can roundtrip correctly.
This also fixes a missing unit and an incorrect name in two existing mappings for oe photo sizes.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Gordon bmgordon@chromium.org