Re: [Tools-discuss] Has 'pdfized' rendering changed?

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 27 May 2022 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA9EC15E40B for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 12:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qFtz1xg9HtU for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2022 12:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493B8C14F743 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2022 12:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.114] ([47.186.48.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 24RJRj9a011838 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 May 2022 14:27:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1653679666; bh=QsE6w+HCxnDyklzfmL43j2/BLzTUsRSw/s2GD4R0wMk=; h=Date:To:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=N4WY2g7a2iuXJ57y5NrxZicgmZh3dLx4FOzBRkJGWVjBAGtQY2AjpyNzF3Pn6mx1r Iak8KGt4AkzP5QsZMaEbs6uHUbu8fBCXNf0W+kA2iZubRxJfKt9gMdnD3xLgE4OtXk vZvI/AAQZUqV0i/3+wmf5z8rQ6IWWEk2IhPDhEXA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.48.51] claimed to be [192.168.1.114]
Message-ID: <f48115aa-78c6-4ca8-b747-3d6df4adf7f5@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 14:27:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <5055006F-4B93-4962-A938-B8C6F35EB058@bluepopcorn.net>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5055006F-4B93-4962-A938-B8C6F35EB058@bluepopcorn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/HPVYoUjE0N8BU2cwpa6kntrw9FU>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Has 'pdfized' rendering changed?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 19:27:54 -0000

Hi Jim -

No the pdfization code has not changed, but we did upgrade the system 
and the underlying libraries, so we may have picked up some changes that 
way.

On a quick skim today this looks to me to be a font-size creep issue. If 
you have a development instance up, play with this line and see how it 
affects your results:

https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/blob/main/ietf/doc/models.py#L583

RjS


On 5/27/22 2:06 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> I went to create a pdfized rendering of an internet-draft for printing, and I notice that the pagination has gone haywire. Comparing a pdfization of a draft I did in March with one I created today from the same draft, it appears that the line spacing has increased and the typeface has changed slightly. The line spacing probably contributed to the problem.
>
> I was having a problem with pagination of the first page (see https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/3653 ) but now things seem much worse. Is anyone else experiencing this?
>
> -Jim
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: datatracker-project@ietf.org
> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: webmaster@tools.ietf.org
> * Report all other bugs or issues to: ietf-action@ietf.org
> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss