Christophe Grandsire writes: > En réponse à Tim May <[log in to unmask]>: > > > Christophe Grandsire writes: > > > En réponse à Muke Tever <[log in to unmask]>: > > > > > > > > > > > Why is the length stated before the width? > > > > > > Not length stated before width, but longest size stated before > > shorter size. A > > > perfectly logical choice to me. > > > > > My bad. I've just checked, and it *always* smallest size first and bigger size > afterwards (i.e. 210x297). But it's always in that order, not dependent on the > orientation of the paper. Still, for paper I still find that vertical should go > before horizontal (maybe because by convention coordinates on a page are > generally taken from the top left hand corner rather than the bottom left...). > > > But what if it's lined paper, and you wish to specify which way the > > lines run? > > What do you think the terms "landscape" and "portrait" are for? :)) > Of course, but my way you save a word. > Anyway, have you ever seen landscape oriented lined paper? I've never seen that > personally. Lined paper is always portrait as far as I know. > I don't recall seeing any, but I can imagine it, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that it is available. > You can't specify anything about orientation if the order > > is defined by which is longest. It's ineffecient, unless there's some > > advantage I can't see. > > > > The thing is that the biggest majority of the paper sheets sold in the world > are unorientated (because they are plain), so what's the point of specifying an > order which would find its use for maybe 1% of the cases? Better not even try, > since nobody would remember it anyway. So indeed the order is 210x297, but it's > not a width-length thing. It's a small figure-big figure thing. My comment > still holds, I was just taking it the wrong way round. > Rectangles without any specified orientation can be referred to your way, if it's really felt that a standard is needed. Besides, we're measuring a distance here, not a displacement. And even if we _were_ measuring the displacement from the top left to bottom right, that would make the y coordinate negative - I don't see how it suggests that the order should be reversed. > > > > > It may be a stationery thing, but in general I'd give x by y, the same > > as I'd give Cartesian grid coordinates. > > The problem is that Cartesian coordinates in this case often imply a bottom > left hand corner origin (to get positive coordinates), while on paper > coordinates are usually measured from the top let hand corner. > There's no intrinsic reason why the two standards shouldn't agree, is there? It's just an unfortunate difference of convention. When is this convention of measuring from the top left of a page used, anyway? I've never come across it.