On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have looked looked but cannot find the dimensions
of J sized paper. Have I been sent on a wild goose chase?
http://www.boxstar.com/papershops/materials/commonpapersizes.htm
suggests there is a USAian paper size called J of 28x48
) jpn_kaku2_240x332mm
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: paper size
I have looked looked but cannot find the dimensions
of J sized paper
I have looked looked but cannot find the
dimensions of J sized paper. Have I been sent on a wild goose
chase?
Thank you for any help.
Katy
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:13:06PM -0400, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Markus Kuhn wrote:
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
I wrote:
It might actually be easier to sell a proposal that *everybody* switch to
a set of sizes based on PA4. Spreading the pain around equally is often
better politics than minimizing the total amount of it.
Addendum: Also, choosing a size that is slightly *smaller* than what
everybody
Henry Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
For the exact same reason you should switch to the metric system...
Unfortunately, there isn't the same incentive. Paper size is basically
arbitrary; it doesn't impinge on everything else the way the units system
does. There's nothing magic about
incentive. Paper size is basically
arbitrary;
The size, yes, but the ratio between the different sizes is not.
It is a *very* nice feature, I use it all the time to print two pages
into a single paper sheet, and then saving in paper costs.
(And of course, even the much greater advantages
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:30:47PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
But there is! Firstly, if you cut a piece of A4 paper into two halves,
each has the same proportions as A4. Secondly, a piece of An paper has
area 1/2**n of a square metre. Standard photocopier paper weighs 80
grams a
Henry Spencer wrote on 2002-05-02 15:51 UTC:
There's nothing magic about 210x297mm that makes anything easier.
There are two im my view very significant advantages:
- Apect ratios are identical for all formats in the series.
Only people who have never really used ISO paper in daily
Kaixo!
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:49:18PM -0400, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Pablo Saratxaga wrote:
...Paper size is basically arbitrary...
The size, yes, but the ratio between the different sizes is not.
It is a *very* nice feature, I use it all the time to print two
Henry Spencer wrote on 2002-05-02 17:49 UTC:
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.
You misunderstood. *We* went through the necessary
Kaixo!
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:07:34PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:30:47PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
But there is! Firstly, if you cut a piece of A4 paper into two halves,
each has the same proportions as A4. Secondly, a piece of An paper has
area
On 2002-05-02 13:49-0400 Henry Spencer wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Pablo Saratxaga wrote:
...Paper size is basically arbitrary...
The size, yes, but the ratio between the different sizes is not. It
is a *very* nice feature, I use it all the time to print two pages
into a single paper
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 03:17:26AM +0200, Oyvind A. Holm wrote:
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?
For the most part, I try not to use pages on my computer - I use
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
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Markus Kuhn wrote:
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.
You misunderstood. *We* went through the necessary
if you want to fit *four* pages into one sheet?
Then doing that with non standard paper sizes will sure be a real pain
Uh, no. Think about it. *Any* rectangular paper size works perfectly for
four-on-one. Slice a rectangle in half both horizontally and vertically,
and each section always has
H. Peter Anvin wrote on 2002-05-01 21:08 UTC:
In the former case, I would like to propose a worldwide compromise
page size -- 210 x 279 mm. Such a page can be printed, cleanly, on
either on A4 (210 x 297 mm) or US-letter (216 x 279 mm) by expanding
either the horizontal (US-letter) or
David Starner wrote on 2002-05-01 22:17 UTC:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 11:06:08PM +0100, Markus Kuhn wrote:
As for the actual physical paper format (as opposed to PDF document
layout), I'd like to warmly encourage people in North America to start
using A4 paper.
Why would we?
For the
As for the actual physical paper format (as opposed to PDF document
layout), I'd like to warmly encourage people in North America to start
using A4 paper.
Why would we?
Because you will eventually, so you might as well do it now to
minimise suffering. Well, I don't know how true that
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 11:32:35PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
As for the actual physical paper format (as opposed to PDF document
layout), I'd like to warmly encourage people in North America to start
using A4 paper.
Why would we?
Because you will eventually, so you
21 matches
Mail list logo
