[Desktop_printing] Re: [Inkjet-list] What happened to ijs spec v1.0?

Till Kamppeter till.kamppeter at gmx.net
Tue Jan 31 05:54:14 PST 2006


Should we make this also a topic for the Printing Summit? WDYT?

   Till


Petrie, Glen wrote:
> The Ghostscript folks began IJS based on HPIJS but over the last year or so,
> have not had the time to complete the specification to version 1.0.
> However, the version 0.35 is being implemented by those solutions which
> support IJS (Ghostscript, CUPS, standalones).  You can also follow HP's
> activities on HPIJS which has a couple of very useful additions to the
> public IJS but otherwise is identical. 
> 
> I keep encouraging the Ghostscript folks to complete the 1.0 specification
> and hope other will join me. 
> 
> IJS does offer the advantage of a very small print client which can be
> directly embedded in applications (for embedded solutions).  The IJS service
> concept allows for complete separation of proprietary driver software from
> GNU open-source - important to some developers.  The IJS service concept
> also allows for simple update by driver software independent of the client
> application and/or print spoolers.  
> 
> I hope that even though IJS is not yet version 1.0, that it continues to be
> supported by the Linux print community. 
> 
> glen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: inkjet-list-bounces at linuxprinting.org
> [mailto:inkjet-list-bounces at linuxprinting.org] On Behalf Of Michael Sweet
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:22 PM
> To: Arne John Glenstrup
> Cc: inkjet-list at linuxprinting.org
> Subject: Re: [Inkjet-list] What happened to ijs spec v1.0?
> 
> Arne John Glenstrup wrote:
> 
>>Hi Inkjet-list-readers,
>>
>>
>>Being a newbie, I am rather puzzled while surfing the web for
>>info on ijs, as everything seems rather outdated.  There was
>>some mention of moving the ijs spec from 0.35 to 1.0, but has
>>this happened yet?
>>
>>Or has ijs been abandoned for some reason?  I saw someone advising
>>to write a rastertoXXX instead of an ijs plugin; why should
>>this be better?
> 
> 
> Because doing a CUPS raster driver allows your driver to take
> full advantage of the CUPS filter architecture and work on more
> platforms.  It is also faster (both at run-time and when developing
> drivers...)
> 




More information about the Printing-summit mailing list