We are discussing in the UPDF group about chances not to increase the global list of paper sizes artificially.
Ideas are:
1. not to list 'Small' sizes under a separate ID, as they have the same physical size as the normal size. A different printable area is anyhow realized by settings values for margins. Additionally it does not seem to be 100% clear what the exact decrease of the printable area would be in every case. If the values for the size are not written in stone (like an RFC and/or a header file together with the ID), it is worthless for a driver developer.
2. not to list 'Extra' sizes under a separate ID, as it is not 100% clear what the exact physical size would be in every case. If the values for the size are not written in stone (like an RFC and/or a header file together with the ID), it is worthless for a driver developer.
3. not to list 'Transverse' sizes under a separate ID, as a any GDI would not know and not be interested - as far as I know - in the feeding method. In UPDF we may treat that as an additional attribute perhaps for later use in previews. But when it comes to announcing settings to the OS or creating a print file, this would not require a change in functionality.
We are discussing that right now in our group.
This is my personal opinion, until we reach further agreement.
Regards
Norbert Schade
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 16:24:47 EST