Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-06-30 Thread luigi scarso
On 5/3/07, Willi Egger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-04 Thread Henning Hraban Ramm
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

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-04 Thread 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 -- luigi

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-04 Thread Henning Hraban Ramm
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

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-04 Thread Patrick Gundlach
[...] 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

[NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-03 Thread luigi scarso
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

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-03 Thread Peter Rolf
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

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-03 Thread luigi scarso
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

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-03 Thread Tobias Burnus
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

Re: [NTG-context] Wrong SRA3 papersize ?

2007-05-03 Thread 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. Consider A4 which is portrait because of the grain direction (Laufrichtung) in the height. Otherwise A3 is two A4 and hence