10.5 Preview page numbering error

Anybody else find that when they "go to page" 50 it ain't exactly page
50? Mine is about 32. Other pages are wrong as well. ??? Isn't
Leopard wonderful? Oh - and MT-NW 3.5.2 often looses all my subscribed
groups - of course this only happened after upgrading to Leopard. Gotta
love Apple.

 

Apple is responsible for a misbehavior in MT-NewsWatcher? Neat trick.
Can't help but notice that there's a 3.5.3 beta. A 0.0.1 release
typically means a bug fix. As in Simon noticed that there was something
wrong in 3.5.2 and fixed it.

And, no: I haven't noticed *your* page numbering problem.

 

The issue is with documents that number table of contents and index pages
separately from the main body. For example, if there is a ten page table of
contents preceding the main pages, that table of contents being numbered from
i to x, then using Preview to go to page 50 will take you to what in the
document is numbered as page 40.

 

By any chance does the PDF document have pages before page 1, perhaps
numbered i, ii, ii, etc.?

I only see that when the PDF document has pages before "page 1" and the
document isn't tagged to tell the reader software what the page numbers
are. And I see the same behavior in both Preview and Adobe Reader.

Here's a link to a document that's correctly tagged:

<http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/PDF32000_2008.pdf>

The first 6 pages are numbered i to vi, followed by pages 1 to 748.
It's correctly tagged so if you "go to page 50", you'll get the page
numbered 50. You can also type roman numerals to go to the first 6
pages.

 

I find that in Preview on 10.4, what James describes is how it works on
screen when going to a specific page, but the Print command counts all
the pages (e.g., i-g or i-vii end up being counted as pages, so to print
page 64 I would have to "print from page 71 to 71" in order to print
page 64).

 

And he says that 3.5.3 beta is specifically for Leopard.

 

Thanks. Good explanation. Its nice when issues are answered calmly
instead of rabidly defensive arguments.

 

Why yes!