I would go by what the printer manufacturers say - mismatch in
dimensions produces a problem at the printer level, i.e., there is a
problem if one uses "executive" paper that has the dimensions
recognized as "executive" by the printer, and the PS code has
"executive" defined differently (I got caught by this, obviously).
For refs to printer sites:
HP
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?
docname=bpd01579&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
XEROX - see page 3-6
http://download.support.xerox.com/pub/docs/4510/userdocs/any-os/en/
user_guide_en.pdf
Both HP and Xerox give 10.5x7.25in - also Ricoh, Canon, Konica-
Minolta, Epson - at this point I stopped googling.
Also, two of the three refs given by you agree - the second ref
http://www.prepressure.com/library/papersizes.htm
which cites 10.55x7.25in also gives 266.7mm and 756p as the height,
both of which measures convert to 10.5in exactly, not 10.55in.
Again, however, the definition that counts, imho, is that of the
printer makers.
Thanks,
John Rupley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
30 Calle Belleza, Tucson AZ 85716
(520) 325-4533; fax - (520) 325-4991
Dept. Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics,
Univ. Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721
On Jul 4, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
lines 97,98:
. ds paper-executive-length 10i
. ds paper-executive-width 7.5i
these dimensions are incorrect;
the correct values are:
. ds paper-executive-length 10.5i
. ds paper-executive-width 7.25i
Hmm, I've now seen three different definitions of the `executive'
format:
10 x 7.5 -> http://www.littlebit.com/general_info/papersize.htm
10.55 x 7.25 -> http://www.prepressure.com/library/papersizes.htm
10.5 x 7.25 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_sizes
Which one shall I believe?
Werner
