You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org by David Gerdt <Dg...@bju.edu> on 2008/05/08 18:17:11 UTC
Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can quickly see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on an AIX system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are instances where the same document can be rendered in either of these two formats, and that's why these differences make me nervous.
In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for the PCL version.
Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if you're interested.
Thanks for the help!
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
On 09.05.2008 15:34:14 David Gerdt wrote:
> Jeremias-
>
> Thanks for this thorough explanation. Very helpful. And I wasn't really
> thinking "bug". I assumed that there was something in the various specs
> (like the margin issue you mentioned with PCL) that was playing games
> with me. And thanks for the heads up about the settings in Acrobat. You
> were correct. I'm guessing there's no way to disable scaling/auto
> rotate/center within the PDF itself via FOP. That's certainly not a
> necessity, just curious.
I don't remember ever seeing anything about that in the PDF spec.
There's only "PrintArea" and "PrintClip" but that doesn't help here.
> Thanks again for all the work.
>
>
<snip/>
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by ~Clive <cl...@fnb.co.za>.
Hi Jeremias,
I have also run into the problem of trying to disable the scale settings in
Acrobat. What I had to do was edit the registry key entries before I
printed:
reg add "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\AVGeneral" /v
bprintExpandToFit /t REG_DWORD /d 0x00000000 /f
reg add "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Adobe\Acrobat Reader\9.0\AVGeneral" /v
iprintScaling /t REG_DWORD /d 0x00000000 /f
These registry entries are only applicable to version 9.0.
I hope someone else has a cleaner solution...
Cheers,
David Gerdt wrote:
>
> Jeremias-
>
> Thanks for this thorough explanation. Very helpful. And I wasn't really
> thinking "bug". I assumed that there was something in the various specs
> (like the margin issue you mentioned with PCL) that was playing games with
> me. And thanks for the heads up about the settings in Acrobat. You were
> correct. I'm guessing there's no way to disable scaling/auto rotate/center
> within the PDF itself via FOP. That's certainly not a necessity, just
> curious.
>
> Thanks again for all the work.
>
>
>
>>>> Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch> 5/9/2008 3:27 AM >>>
> I guess that goes into my department again. ;-)
>
> Problem 1: Most likely you've fallen into the trap that you forgot to
> disable the "Page Scaling" setting in Acrobat Reader's print dialog.
> That has been the case in >95% of the cases similar problems were
> reported here.
>
> Problem 2: Another problem that I think occurs here is that in PCL I
> cannot print without margins. If I have text that is too close to the
> paper edge, it is indented. I have never found a way to print text all
> the way to the upper/left page edge in PCL 5. That's just a language
> limitation which is explicitely mentioned in the language spec.
> Especially with these labels where the text is very near to the paper
> edges such shifting effects are to be expected.
>
> Anyway, just to be sure I compared PDF and PCL output locally with your
> labels.fo. The only change I've applied to the file is that I switched
> to A4 because I don't have letter-sized paper. I sent the generated PCL
> to my Brother HL-1250 directly and printed the PDF via Acrobat Reader
> with all page scaling options (even page centering) off. If you don't do
> that you can't be sure that the margins are really those you specified
> in FO.
>
> My result: The two pages are nearly identical. What I could see is that
> the first table column is shifted to the right because of the problem 2
> I noted above. If I just compare columns 2 and 3, the output has
> differences in the area of <0.3mm which I think can be tolerated.
>
> Also note in this context that PDF and PCL use different font metric
> sources (PDF: FOP's own font subsystem, PCL: the same as the
> Java2D-based renderers). You can see the effect yourself if you generate
> the intermediate format for both renderers:
> fop -fo labels.fo -at application/pdf labels.pdf.at.xml
> fop -fo labels.fo -at application/x-pcl labels.pcl.at.xml
> So this difference accounts for different line break decisions in more
> complex situations. You can work around that to a certain degree. See:
> http://markmail.org/message/n3myr6scq6afh7uz
>
> Just as an illustration how the two output formats differ, I've
> generated bitmap versions of the PDF and PCL with GhostScript and
> GhostPCL and created a comparison image using TortoiseSVN's bitmap
> differ. The result is attached. You'll see that the two output formats
> use slightly different fonts and that the first column is shifted to the
> right as mentioned above. You can also see from background-colors I
> applied to some table-cells that PCL cannot paint its cell background
> all the way to the right paper edge. But the rest is practically
> identical even though the intermediate files are slightly different due
> to font metric differences.
>
> Conclusion: Not a FOP bug. :-)
>
> On 08.05.2008 18:17:11 David Gerdt wrote:
>> I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured
>> between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of
>> address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference
>> between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
>>
>> I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to
>> develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can
>> quickly
>> see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on an AIX
>> system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are instances where
>> the same document can be rendered in either of these two formats, and
>> that's why these differences make me nervous.
>>
>> In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference
>> in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at
>> 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a
>> 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top
>> margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the
>> first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for
>> the PCL version.
>>
>> Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
>>
>> I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if
>> you're interested.
>>
>> Thanks for the help!
>
>
>
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Measurement-accuracy-in-PDF-vs-PCL-tp17131325p20786638.html
Sent from the FOP - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by David Gerdt <Dg...@bju.edu>.
Jeremias-
Thanks for this thorough explanation. Very helpful. And I wasn't really thinking "bug". I assumed that there was something in the various specs (like the margin issue you mentioned with PCL) that was playing games with me. And thanks for the heads up about the settings in Acrobat. You were correct. I'm guessing there's no way to disable scaling/auto rotate/center within the PDF itself via FOP. That's certainly not a necessity, just curious.
Thanks again for all the work.
>>> Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch> 5/9/2008 3:27 AM >>>
I guess that goes into my department again. ;-)
Problem 1: Most likely you've fallen into the trap that you forgot to
disable the "Page Scaling" setting in Acrobat Reader's print dialog.
That has been the case in >95% of the cases similar problems were
reported here.
Problem 2: Another problem that I think occurs here is that in PCL I
cannot print without margins. If I have text that is too close to the
paper edge, it is indented. I have never found a way to print text all
the way to the upper/left page edge in PCL 5. That's just a language
limitation which is explicitely mentioned in the language spec.
Especially with these labels where the text is very near to the paper
edges such shifting effects are to be expected.
Anyway, just to be sure I compared PDF and PCL output locally with your
labels.fo. The only change I've applied to the file is that I switched
to A4 because I don't have letter-sized paper. I sent the generated PCL
to my Brother HL-1250 directly and printed the PDF via Acrobat Reader
with all page scaling options (even page centering) off. If you don't do
that you can't be sure that the margins are really those you specified
in FO.
My result: The two pages are nearly identical. What I could see is that
the first table column is shifted to the right because of the problem 2
I noted above. If I just compare columns 2 and 3, the output has
differences in the area of <0.3mm which I think can be tolerated.
Also note in this context that PDF and PCL use different font metric
sources (PDF: FOP's own font subsystem, PCL: the same as the
Java2D-based renderers). You can see the effect yourself if you generate
the intermediate format for both renderers:
fop -fo labels.fo -at application/pdf labels.pdf.at.xml
fop -fo labels.fo -at application/x-pcl labels.pcl.at.xml
So this difference accounts for different line break decisions in more
complex situations. You can work around that to a certain degree. See:
http://markmail.org/message/n3myr6scq6afh7uz
Just as an illustration how the two output formats differ, I've
generated bitmap versions of the PDF and PCL with GhostScript and
GhostPCL and created a comparison image using TortoiseSVN's bitmap
differ. The result is attached. You'll see that the two output formats
use slightly different fonts and that the first column is shifted to the
right as mentioned above. You can also see from background-colors I
applied to some table-cells that PCL cannot paint its cell background
all the way to the right paper edge. But the rest is practically
identical even though the intermediate files are slightly different due
to font metric differences.
Conclusion: Not a FOP bug. :-)
On 08.05.2008 18:17:11 David Gerdt wrote:
> I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured
> between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of
> address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference
> between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
>
> I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to
> develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can quickly
> see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on an AIX
> system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are instances where
> the same document can be rendered in either of these two formats, and
> that's why these differences make me nervous.
>
> In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference
> in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at
> 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a
> 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top
> margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the
> first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for
> the PCL version.
>
> Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
>
> I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if
> you're interested.
>
> Thanks for the help!
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
I guess that goes into my department again. ;-)
Problem 1: Most likely you've fallen into the trap that you forgot to
disable the "Page Scaling" setting in Acrobat Reader's print dialog.
That has been the case in >95% of the cases similar problems were
reported here.
Problem 2: Another problem that I think occurs here is that in PCL I
cannot print without margins. If I have text that is too close to the
paper edge, it is indented. I have never found a way to print text all
the way to the upper/left page edge in PCL 5. That's just a language
limitation which is explicitely mentioned in the language spec.
Especially with these labels where the text is very near to the paper
edges such shifting effects are to be expected.
Anyway, just to be sure I compared PDF and PCL output locally with your
labels.fo. The only change I've applied to the file is that I switched
to A4 because I don't have letter-sized paper. I sent the generated PCL
to my Brother HL-1250 directly and printed the PDF via Acrobat Reader
with all page scaling options (even page centering) off. If you don't do
that you can't be sure that the margins are really those you specified
in FO.
My result: The two pages are nearly identical. What I could see is that
the first table column is shifted to the right because of the problem 2
I noted above. If I just compare columns 2 and 3, the output has
differences in the area of <0.3mm which I think can be tolerated.
Also note in this context that PDF and PCL use different font metric
sources (PDF: FOP's own font subsystem, PCL: the same as the
Java2D-based renderers). You can see the effect yourself if you generate
the intermediate format for both renderers:
fop -fo labels.fo -at application/pdf labels.pdf.at.xml
fop -fo labels.fo -at application/x-pcl labels.pcl.at.xml
So this difference accounts for different line break decisions in more
complex situations. You can work around that to a certain degree. See:
http://markmail.org/message/n3myr6scq6afh7uz
Just as an illustration how the two output formats differ, I've
generated bitmap versions of the PDF and PCL with GhostScript and
GhostPCL and created a comparison image using TortoiseSVN's bitmap
differ. The result is attached. You'll see that the two output formats
use slightly different fonts and that the first column is shifted to the
right as mentioned above. You can also see from background-colors I
applied to some table-cells that PCL cannot paint its cell background
all the way to the right paper edge. But the rest is practically
identical even though the intermediate files are slightly different due
to font metric differences.
Conclusion: Not a FOP bug. :-)
On 08.05.2008 18:17:11 David Gerdt wrote:
> I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured
> between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of
> address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference
> between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
>
> I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to
> develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can quickly
> see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on an AIX
> system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are instances where
> the same document can be rendered in either of these two formats, and
> that's why these differences make me nervous.
>
> In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference
> in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at
> 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a
> 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top
> margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the
> first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for
> the PCL version.
>
> Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
>
> I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if
> you're interested.
>
> Thanks for the help!
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
BTW, this was for fop-0.20.5... Things have improved for fop-0.93+...
Clay
On 5/9/08, The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The solution I had, was to use different margin measurements for PDF &
> Print/PCL in XSL. I'd do an XSL import of the print .fo files into the
> PDF version, and due to cascading stylesheets, the PDF measurements
> and the use-attribute-set attribrute, I was able to reuse my print
> templates for the overall layout.
>
> Clay
>
>
>
> On 5/8/08, David Gerdt <Dg...@bju.edu> wrote:
>> I've tried to think through the "fudge factor" for this particular
>> application and unfortunately haven't found anything that works. I have a
>> pretty narrow target to hit with each label and by the time the
>> differences
>> add up, correcting for one extreme (i.e. too high or too low) inevitably
>> causes problems at the other end of the sheet.
>>
>> As I said, I'm not sure that these particular labels will ever have cause
>> to
>> be printed from a PDF rendering, so I can develop the sheet for PCL and
>> not
>> worry about the problems at this point, but it does raise interesting
>> questions in my mind about the reliability of the measurements we specify
>> in
>> general. How much confidence can we have that when we say Xmm, we will
>> really be guaranteed Xmm?
>>
>> The line wrapping issue you mention is also intriguing.
>>
>> For the record, though, many thanks to all the FOP dev team for the work
>> going on here. I poked through the code a little and there has been a ton
>> of
>> work to get FOP to this point.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>>>> Roland Neilands 5/8/2008 7:13 PM >>>
>> I'll second this. I also see difference in either text sizes or field
>> width causing line wrapping in several places in PCL but not PDF with
>> the same file. The workaround is to allow a fudge factor in the
>> field/table row/table height sizes, but this can cause text overlapping
>> or large blank areas, so it's hardly ideal.
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Roland *
>>
>>
>> David Gerdt wrote:
>>> I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured
>>> between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of
>>> address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference
>>> between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
>>>
>>> I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to
>>> develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can
>>> quickly see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on
>>> an AIX system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are
>>> instances where the same document can be rendered in either of these
>>> two formats, and that's why these differences make me nervous.
>>>
>>> In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference
>>> in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at
>>> 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a
>>> 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top
>>> margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the
>>> first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for
>>> the PCL version.
>>>
>>> Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
>>>
>>> I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if
>>> you're interested.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the help!
>>>
>>> This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may
>>> contain information which is confidential or privileged. Any
>>> unauthorised use of its contents is prohibited. If you have received
>>> this e-mail in error, please notify the sender via return e-mail and
>>> then delete the original e-mail.
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>>
>> This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may
>> contain
>> information which is confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use of
>> its
>> contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
>> notify the sender via return e-mail and then delete the original e-mail.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
> Regards,
>
> The Web Maestro
> --
> <th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Regards,
The Web Maestro
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by The Web Maestro <th...@gmail.com>.
The solution I had, was to use different margin measurements for PDF &
Print/PCL in XSL. I'd do an XSL import of the print .fo files into the
PDF version, and due to cascading stylesheets, the PDF measurements
and the use-attribute-set attribrute, I was able to reuse my print
templates for the overall layout.
Clay
On 5/8/08, David Gerdt <Dg...@bju.edu> wrote:
> I've tried to think through the "fudge factor" for this particular
> application and unfortunately haven't found anything that works. I have a
> pretty narrow target to hit with each label and by the time the differences
> add up, correcting for one extreme (i.e. too high or too low) inevitably
> causes problems at the other end of the sheet.
>
> As I said, I'm not sure that these particular labels will ever have cause to
> be printed from a PDF rendering, so I can develop the sheet for PCL and not
> worry about the problems at this point, but it does raise interesting
> questions in my mind about the reliability of the measurements we specify in
> general. How much confidence can we have that when we say Xmm, we will
> really be guaranteed Xmm?
>
> The line wrapping issue you mention is also intriguing.
>
> For the record, though, many thanks to all the FOP dev team for the work
> going on here. I poked through the code a little and there has been a ton of
> work to get FOP to this point.
>
> Dave
>
>
>>>> Roland Neilands 5/8/2008 7:13 PM >>>
> I'll second this. I also see difference in either text sizes or field
> width causing line wrapping in several places in PCL but not PDF with
> the same file. The workaround is to allow a fudge factor in the
> field/table row/table height sizes, but this can cause text overlapping
> or large blank areas, so it's hardly ideal.
>
> Regards,
> *Roland *
>
>
> David Gerdt wrote:
>> I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured
>> between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of
>> address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference
>> between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
>>
>> I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to
>> develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can
>> quickly see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on
>> an AIX system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are
>> instances where the same document can be rendered in either of these
>> two formats, and that's why these differences make me nervous.
>>
>> In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference
>> in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at
>> 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a
>> 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top
>> margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the
>> first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for
>> the PCL version.
>>
>> Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
>>
>> I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if
>> you're interested.
>>
>> Thanks for the help!
>>
>> This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may
>> contain information which is confidential or privileged. Any
>> unauthorised use of its contents is prohibited. If you have received
>> this e-mail in error, please notify the sender via return e-mail and
>> then delete the original e-mail.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
> This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may contain
> information which is confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use of its
> contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender via return e-mail and then delete the original e-mail.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Regards,
The Web Maestro
--
<th...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/>
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by David Gerdt <Dg...@bju.edu>.
I've tried to think through the "fudge factor" for this particular application and unfortunately haven't found anything that works. I have a pretty narrow target to hit with each label and by the time the differences add up, correcting for one extreme (i.e. too high or too low) inevitably causes problems at the other end of the sheet.
As I said, I'm not sure that these particular labels will ever have cause to be printed from a PDF rendering, so I can develop the sheet for PCL and not worry about the problems at this point, but it does raise interesting questions in my mind about the reliability of the measurements we specify in general. How much confidence can we have that when we say Xmm, we will really be guaranteed Xmm?
The line wrapping issue you mention is also intriguing.
For the record, though, many thanks to all the FOP dev team for the work going on here. I poked through the code a little and there has been a ton of work to get FOP to this point.
Dave
>>> Roland Neilands 5/8/2008 7:13 PM >>>
I'll second this. I also see difference in either text sizes or field
width causing line wrapping in several places in PCL but not PDF with
the same file. The workaround is to allow a fudge factor in the
field/table row/table height sizes, but this can cause text overlapping
or large blank areas, so it's hardly ideal.
Regards,
*Roland *
David Gerdt wrote:
> I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured
> between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of
> address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference
> between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
>
> I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to
> develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can
> quickly see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on
> an AIX system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are
> instances where the same document can be rendered in either of these
> two formats, and that's why these differences make me nervous.
>
> In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference
> in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at
> 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a
> 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top
> margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the
> first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for
> the PCL version.
>
> Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
>
> I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if
> you're interested.
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
> This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may
> contain information which is confidential or privileged. Any
> unauthorised use of its contents is prohibited. If you have received
> this e-mail in error, please notify the sender via return e-mail and
> then delete the original e-mail.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information which is confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use of its contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender via return e-mail and then delete the original e-mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Measurement accuracy in PDF vs PCL
Posted by Roland Neilands <rn...@pulsemining.com.au>.
I'll second this. I also see difference in either text sizes or field
width causing line wrapping in several places in PCL but not PDF with
the same file. The workaround is to allow a fudge factor in the
field/table row/table height sizes, but this can cause text overlapping
or large blank areas, so it's hardly ideal.
Regards,
*Roland *
David Gerdt wrote:
> I'm curious as to the differences between how distances are measured
> between different output formats. I've been trying to get a sheet of
> address labels to align correctly and am noticing a vast difference
> between how they are rendered in a PDF vs how they appear in PCL.
>
> I use a combination of Eclipse and the Orangevolt XSLT plugin to
> develop my style sheets and generate PDFs on a WinXP box because I can
> quickly see the results. Ultimately, the documents will be rendered on
> an AIX system, normally (though not always) as PCL. There are
> instances where the same document can be rendered in either of these
> two formats, and that's why these differences make me nervous.
>
> In the case of the mailing labels, I'm noticing about a 1mm difference
> in height for the table cells. PDF cells are right at 26mm and PCL at
> 27mm. That sounds like a very slight difference, but it adds up to a
> 1cm difference over the ten rows of the sheet of labels. Also, the top
> margin has a difference of about 5mm between the two formats, with the
> first table row starting at 17mm in the PDF output and about 12mm for
> the PCL version.
>
> Can anyone give any insight? Is this just a driver thing?
>
> I am running the 0.95beta on both machines. The fo is attached if
> you're interested.
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
> This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may
> contain information which is confidential or privileged. Any
> unauthorised use of its contents is prohibited. If you have received
> this e-mail in error, please notify the sender via return e-mail and
> then delete the original e-mail.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
This e-mail is solely for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information which is confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use of its contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender via return e-mail and then delete the original e-mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org