- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:37:05 +0200
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Florian Rivoal wrote:
> > In the interest of avoiding stacks of properties, could we find one
> > design that works for all/most printers?
>
> I would ask that the crop marks and cross marks be entirely outside of
> the bleed.
That seems like a reasonable requirement. But is that far enough out
for all printers? Esp. when bleed is small, it seems we need a minimum
distance in addition?
> This is useful when in post processing you want to be able to detect and
> isolate the crop marks, which is needed for some workflows where you
> want to delete the crop marks but keep the bleed.
>
> I would also prefer that we remove this requirement: "This property
> (bleed) only has effect if crop marks are enabled.", and get a way of
> showing the bleed without displaying the crop marks.
I agree.
> Both requirements stem from the fact that it is sometimes useful to have
> bleed but not crop marks. When preparing print plates where multiple
> documents are combined next to eachother to be printed on one sheet of
> paper, and later cut, you want the bleed to avoid getting thin lines of
> white when cutting, but you don't want the crop marks around each
> document, as they'd take a lot of space, but instead regenerate them on
> the side of the whole print plate.
>
> Naturally, to generate these, you need to know where the page stops, but
> visual crop marks are not necessary for that. Metadata (such as the
> coordinates of the bleed box in pdf files) is sufficient.
Yes.
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 20:37:38 UTC