- 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