Hi Zdenek, Many thanks to your clear explanation.
> ... And now there is a question: the author of a PDF > document intended a physical orientation which > differs from the orientation intended for a screen > preview. If such a PDF is included into another PDF, > which one should be used, the physical one or the > one intended for screen preview? In my opinion, pdf with /Rotate should be rotated: that means the orientation intended for screen preview should be used. It seems pdfTeX is the effective 'standard', and it intends to rotate such pdf, and xdvipdfmx says "not supported yet" (it seems the author of xdvipdfmx would like to rotate in the future). > When making a PDF intended for inclusion I always > prepare it in such a way that its natural orientation > is the same as the physical orientation, I do not use > /Rotate. That may be true (I also know "pre-treatment" of pdf I've mentioned before works well), but *normal* users who are not familiar with pdf specification would be confused: I carefully rotated pdf before inclusion, but XeTeX does not understand. Why? Related questions have appeared in StackExchange several times as I mentioned, so it seems natural that normal users cannot understand the reason why XeTeX includes some pdf figures in different orientation from what viewers show. Above is my personal opinion as a normal user. I'd like to hear some other opinions. Has anyone ever had same kind of questions? Thanks, Hironobu -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
