In page-lay.tex \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=320mm,\c!height=450mm] maybe is wrong. It should be \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=450mm,\c!height=320mm] See http://www.theearthpaper.net/paper-sizes.html but need a confirm -- luigi ---------------------------------------------------------------- If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net
luigi scarso wrote:
In page-lay.tex \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=320mm,\c!height=450mm] maybe is wrong. It should be \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=450mm,\c!height=320mm]
See http://www.theearthpaper.net/paper-sizes.html but need a confirm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_217 says the opposite. Best, Peter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_217
says the opposite. Yes, but searching for 'SRA3 "450x320" ' give some hits, and I have two differents blocks of 500 sheets labelled SRA3 450x320 Why this confusion ?
-- luigi ---------------------------------------------------------------- If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net
Peter Rolf schrieb:
luigi scarso wrote:
In page-lay.tex \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=320mm,\c!height=450mm] maybe is wrong. It should be \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=450mm,\c!height=320mm]
I have found both versions on the net, but as RA* and SRA* are only scaled versions of the A* papers (5% and 15% larger), I think the definition should match the one of A*.
As A3 is portrait, \definepapersize [A3] [\c!width=297mm,\c!height=420mm] I would also expect RA and SRA to be portrait as well and not landscape, ConTeXt has \definepapersize [RA3] [\c!width=305mm,\c!height=430mm] \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=320mm,\c!height=450mm]
From that point of view, the definition is correct.
Tobias
Hi, this is an interesting discussion. I admit, that I do not have the ultimate knowledge. Nevertheless I doubt whether the A3 format has to be considered portrait. Consider A4 which is portrait because of the grain direction (Laufrichtung) in the height. Otherwise A3 is two A4 and hence the grain direction is in the shorthand. - Generally speaking the graindirection is in the direction of the longer edge in all A- foomats with even numbers, including A0. - Looking in this way at RA3 and SRA3 I would expect that the graindirection is also on the short side. Therefore The definition shoud be width=305 and height=430 mm and width=320 and height=450mm respectively. So Luigi you learned determination of the grain direction in Epen, please look this up in your two blocks! Kind regards Willi, the bookbinder ;-) On May 3, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Peter Rolf schrieb:
luigi scarso wrote:
In page-lay.tex \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=320mm,\c!height=450mm] maybe is wrong. It should be \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=450mm,\c!height=320mm]
I have found both versions on the net, but as RA* and SRA* are only scaled versions of the A* papers (5% and 15% larger), I think the definition should match the one of A*.
As A3 is portrait, \definepapersize [A3] [\c!width=297mm,\c!height=420mm] I would also expect RA and SRA to be portrait as well and not landscape, ConTeXt has \definepapersize [RA3] [\c!width=305mm,\c!height=430mm] \definepapersize [SRA3] [\c!width=320mm,\c!height=450mm]
From that point of view, the definition is correct.
Tobias ______________________________________________________________________ _____________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ______________________________________________________________________ _____________
Willi Egger w.egger@boede.nl
Am 2007-05-03 um 21:19 schrieb Willi Egger:
Consider A4 which is portrait because of the grain direction (Laufrichtung) in the height. Otherwise A3 is two A4 and hence the grain direction is in the shorthand. - Generally speaking the graindirection is in the direction of the longer edge in all A- foomats with even numbers, including A0. - Looking in this way at RA3 and SRA3 I would expect that the graindirection is also on the short side. Therefore The definition shoud be width=305 and height=430 mm and width=320 and height=450mm respectively.
So Luigi you learned determination of the grain direction in Epen, please look this up in your two blocks!
Kind regards Willi, the bookbinder ;-)
As a bookbinder you should know that you can get paper in both grain directions (even if one's much more usual). ISO definitions of paper sizes are always portrait. see also http://wiki.contextgarden.net/PaperSizes I never heard of RA/SRA sizes before (doubt that they're standardized), but feel free to add them as soon as the wiki has moved. Greetlings: Hraban, the printing engineer --- http://www.fiee.net/texnique/ http://wiki.contextgarden.net https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)
see also http://wiki.contextgarden.net/PaperSizes wow! I never heard of RA/SRA sizes before (doubt that they're standardized), hmm, see http://www.edsebooks.com/paper/naukeupaper.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_217
-- luigi ---------------------------------------------------------------- If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net
Am 2007-05-04 um 14:51 schrieb luigi scarso:
see also http://wiki.contextgarden.net/PaperSizes wow! I never heard of RA/SRA sizes before (doubt that they're standardized), hmm, see http://www.edsebooks.com/paper/naukeupaper.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_217
Thank you! Looks like I've a lot to add to my collection... (The paper sizes page was a start to collect traditional printing knowledge someplace where interested typographers would find it...) Greetlings from Lake Constance! Hraban --- http://www.fiee.net/texnique/ http://wiki.contextgarden.net https://www.cacert.org (I'm an assurer)
[...]
see also http://wiki.contextgarden.net/PaperSizes I never heard of RA/SRA sizes before (doubt that they're standardized), but feel free to add them as soon as the wiki has moved.
It has moved - now I am waiting for the dns servers to update the new IP. Patrick
On 5/3/07, Willi Egger
Hi,
this is an interesting discussion. I admit, that I do not have the ultimate knowledge. Nevertheless I doubt whether the A3 format has to be considered portrait.
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Image:SRA3.jpg -- luigi ---------------------------------------------------------------- If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net
participants (6)
-
Henning Hraban Ramm -
luigi scarso -
Patrick Gundlach -
Peter Rolf -
Tobias Burnus -
Willi Egger