On Fri, 3 May 2002, Oyvind A. Holm wrote:
> > [...] With modern printing and copying technology, where you can do a
> > 64.7% reduction as easily as any other, the advantage from having the
> > paper size in exactly the right ratio is slight. Not zero, but not
> > very important in practice.
>
> Back in the Slackware days i used mpage(1) to get four pages on one A4
> page -- perfect reading size. How would the letter/legal/whatever look
> like in that case?
Exactly the same. Four-up printing works for *any* paper size, because
you just cut all the "page" dimensions in half and keep the same
orientation. It's only two-up, where you have to scale by a non-integer
factor and include a 90deg rotation, where a height/width ratio of sqrt(2)
avoids a small waste of space.
> ...it also eliminates a troublesome converting stage. ISO 216
> is based on the metric system like 1mē = A0. Much simpler and cleaner.
Uh, why? How often do you care about what fraction of a square meter is
occupied by the paper you're using?
> I prefer decimal numbers. No fractions wanted.
Note that A4 is 1/16 of a square meter. Looks like a fraction to me.
> > > As PA4 doesn't have the nice property of the geometric relationship...
> > That does make a very convenient excuse for insisting that the other
> > guys incur all the pain of conversion. Unfortunately, this does *not*
> > help in selling the idea, which was exactly my point.
>
> Well, why downgrade?
Because it's much easier to sell a solution which involves *everyone*
converting to a common size than it is to sell a solution which involves
only one group incurring the pain of conversion. Especially if the new
size is more or less compatible with old binders, etc., for both groups
(which neither of the existing sizes is). I'm talking about the practical
politics of standardization here, not about right and wrong.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
