lmi
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master 4ecd4fe: Print a page number on the dupli


From: Vadim Zeitlin
Subject: Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master 4ecd4fe: Print a page number on the duplicate signature page
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 01:24:19 +0100

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:12:02 -0500 (EST) Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> branch: master
GC> commit 4ecd4fe5c5721c1fac41bd72f069008c216a3efc
GC> Author: Gregory W. Chicares <address@hidden>
GC> Commit: Gregory W. Chicares <address@hidden>
GC> 
GC>     Print a page number on the duplicate signature page
GC>     
GC>     NAIC drafted its illustration reg two decades ago, when illustrations
GC>     were normally printed on paper. At that time, it made sense to print an
GC>     extra copy of the prescribed numeric-summary-and-certification page, so
GC>     that it could be signed and physically delivered to the insurer.
GC>     
GC>     Prior to this commit, that duplicate page has borne no page number, yet
GC>     it has been included in the page count; thus, an illustration could
GC>     consist of a (questionably) unnumbered cover page, then eight pages
GC>     numbered "1 of 9" through "8 of 9"...and finally this unnumbered
GC>     duplicate page, so that no page "9 of 9" exists and the illustration
GC>     therefore seems incomplete. Now, the last page is numbered "9 of 9".
GC>     
GC>     Excluding the cover page, the now-retired XSL-FO code would have
GC>     numbered the pages "1 of 8" through "8 of 8" in the example above, and
GC>     labelled the duplicate final page "Attachment".

 I'm almost certain (but admit not having tested this) that this used to be
the new code behaviour in its initial version as well, but I must have
broken it with some of the later changes and didn't even notice it.

GC>     It would alternatively have been okay to use that labelling scheme
GC>     with wxPdfDoc illustrations, but that would constitute a major
GC>     change.

 I think it should be possible to change this without too much trouble
(but, again, I haven't actually tested it yet), so if the original page
numbering is preferable, I should be able to provide a patch implementing
it.

 Please let me know if I should do this,
VZ


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]