[Printing-architecture] "no-color-management" not a good idea for a name of a boolean CUPS option

[Chris Murphy]

On Jun 12, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have encountered a problem with the "no-color-management" and
> cupsGetOption() not be able to recognize that the user has supplied "-o
> no-color-management" on the command line.
> 
> If you have an arbitrary boolean option in CUPS filters or backends,
> like "xxx" the variants
> 
>   -o xxx
>   -o xxx=1
>   -o xxx=on
>   -o xxx=yes
>   -o xxx=true
> 
> are supposed to let it be interpreted as set and
> 
>   -o noxxx
>   -o xxx=0
>   -o xxx=off
>   -o xxx=no
>   -o xxx=false
> 
> let it be interpreted as not set. To support the "-o noxxx" case
> cupsGetOption() seems to split a "no" in the beginning of the name off
> if there is no '='. Therefore "no-color-management=" works but
> "no-color-management" not. The latter is probably interpreted as
> "-color-management=false".
> 
> Mike, am I right with this?
> 
> So I suggest something like "calibration-mode", "cm-calibration-mode",
> "cm-calibration", or similar.

I agree that color management is too general a term and it's confusing what it means. So it's useful in the form of cm- to make it easier to find color management related switches, but the switches themselves have separate names:

cm-linearization
cm-calibration
cm-ICC
cm-3DLUT

And so on, each with a Boolean value. 


Chris Murphy