[cups.general] Error: No %%BoundingBox: comment in header!
Ambrose Li
ambrose.li at gmail.com
Sat Mar 24 11:07:06 PDT 2007
On 24/03/07, Michael Sweet <mike at easysw.com> wrote:
> >
> > Where did you get the idea that BoundingBox is required? According to DSC
> > 3.0 G.11.1 paragraph 2, "there no longer are any required comments" ever
> > since DSC 2.1 was released, and "all comments are optional".
> > ...
>
> *CUPS* requires the %%BoundingBox command and does nothing with
> %%DocumentMedia. We require %%BoundingBox because the EPSF spec
> requires it and because that is the only way for us to safely
> scale/offset pages as needed.
>
> Also, on a more practical note you'll find that most apps generate
> the %%BoundingBox comment but almost none generate %%DocumentMedia.
That is clearer.
But multipage EPS really is meaningless. I know I am referring to an outdated
standard, but EPS should be zero or one page; it is meaningless refer to a
multipage EPSF. If BoundingBox is required for CUPS (1.2) to function
properly, then CUPS is in effect forcing people to apply an inappropriate
standard and I would consider this a bug (in the requirements/design); if
BoundingBox is required for CUPS's n-up algorithm, then this is a limitation
due to the situation and should be stated as such and not stated as a simple
"requirement" (which might mislead people to think of standards compliance).
The thing is, without BoundingBox (which really is still SWAG because it need
not imply any page size due to the way "bounding box" is defined), CUPS
still cannot "require" people to generate it because it really isn't
required in a
standards-compliance sense.
(PS: I understand the practical side of things, since I did it myself too, as I
explained earlier.)
--
cheers,
-ambrose
Gmail must die. Yes, I use it, but it still must die.
PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important)
More information about the cups
mailing list