Markup outside page boundaries

[dvanee]

I have many PDF's where others have added comments outside the page boundaries (using other PDF software). When I open with PDF-Xchange Editor I can only see markups / comments etc that are inside the page boundary. Any comments outside are not visible or selectable. If a markup is partially inside the boundary and partially outside I can select the portion on the page and drag it inside the page but I can only see the portion inside the page limits.

Is there anyway to view the PDF / markup etc outside the page limits?

Attached is a sample of what I mean. This PDF has 3 text boxes (created with another PDF program). One is on the page, one partially on the page and one outside the page limits. In PDF XChange Editor I can see all of one box, part of box 2 and none of the third.

[Daniel - PDF-XChange]

Hello Dvanee,

We do not allow you to select comments beyond the page bounds as there is no logic to it, this is also why we do not allow placement of comments outside the page bounds.
If a comment is above a page 2 and overlaps a comment on page 1, do we select the comment from page 2, or the comment that is in the same spot, on the bottom of page 1? It simply has too many possible conflicts to begin implementing such a niche feature. If you wish for text comments to be visible outside the page bounds you should instead be using "sticky notes".

If you do wish to select comments that have been placed off the page in the Editor, this can only be accomplished by making use of the Comments pane (Ctrl+M)

Kind regards,

[russ1642]

Other PDF software allows comments and markup to be placed outside of page boundaries. This is important for engineering markups as the drawings are often so packed with stuff that there's no room for detailed comments and markup right on the page. It's not just text comments people make but sometimes a little sketch or whatever. So then I open the files in PDF xchange and can't do a damn thing with them because of some false sense of what people use comments and markup for. All I can see is an arrow leading off the page to nowhere. And for the record the software that allows markup outside the page boundaries is Revu, which is used in engineering quite a bit. So unfortunately PDF XChange doesn't get to decide what the right or wrong way to use markup tools is. We'd just like them the software to be compatible with other software or else what's the point?

[Paul - PDF-XChange]

Hi, russ1642

I spoke to the development team leader about this and it is a real can of worms.

It is not just a matter of us deciding what is the right or wrong way to use Mark Ups, that is the role of the ISO. There is a standard and Bluebeam are notorious for deviating from the standards.

For good or bad, we have no plans at the moment to support off-page comments.

[Mathew]

Other PDF software allows comments and markup to be placed outside of page boundaries. This is important for engineering markups as the drawings are often so packed with stuff that there's no room for detailed comments and markup right on the page. It's not just text comments people make but sometimes a little sketch or whatever. So then I open the files in PDF xchange and can't do a damn thing with them because of some false sense of what people use comments and markup for. All I can see is an arrow leading off the page to nowhere. And for the record the software that allows markup outside the page boundaries is Revu, which is used in engineering quite a bit. So unfortunately PDF XChange doesn't get to decide what the right or wrong way to use markup tools is. We'd just like them the software to be compatible with other software or else what's the point?

I feel your pain @dvanee and @russ1642. What's particularly pernicious about it is that in PXCE we may not even know the markup is there until our client/coworker/reviewer starts asking why we're ignoring their comments. I've also asked many times for this feature. It causes me so much pain that I ended up making a tool to work around it: I expand the page boundaries (media box) to match whatever markup is there. It's posted here - it requires a registered copy of PXCE v10.6 or more recent:

viewtopic.php?p=188981#p188981

I still hold out hope there is some way PXCE can find to make those markups visible. Until then, I just run that tool on all pages of markups I receive from other people to expand to all comments and add a green trim box to the current page boundary.

One thing to keep in mind is that Re*u will obliterate the trim box, so you need to revert media to the trim box before returning the file to someone using that program.

[Sean - PDF-XChange]

Thanks mathew - if such a feature ever becomes available, we will detail it in the version history when the new build is released - but as indicated, there is no intention to do so at the moment.

Kind regards,

[mCHSNUg5Pz8cPap]

It is not just a matter of us deciding what is the right or wrong way to use Mark Ups, that is the role of the ISO.

I was curious about this so I looked up the PDF specification. The relevant sections are 7.7.3 and 14.11.2 (copy attached below).

PDF Spec Sections 7.7 et seq and 14.11 et seq.pdf

Notably, Section 7.7.3.1 describes pdf documents as having a structure known as a "page tree" that is made up of "page tree nodes" and "page objects." It also says that "[c]ompliant PDF processors shall be prepared to handle any form of the tree structure build of such nodes."

Section 7.7.3.3 lists the entries for page objects, which includes: Mediabox (required), CropBox (optional), BleedBox (optional), TrimBox (optional), and ArtBox (Optional). These refer to the user to Section 14.11.2.1 for a description of these boxes.

Section 14.11.2.1 explains that (emphasis added):

A PDF page may be prepared either for a finished medium, such as a sheet of paper, or as part of a prepress process in which the content of the page is placed on an intermediate medium, such as film or an imposed reproduction plate. In the latter case, it is important to distinguish between the intermediate page and the finished page. The intermediate page may often include additional production-related content, such as bleeds or printer marks, that falls outside the boundaries of the finished page. To handle such cases, a PDF page may define as many as five separate boundaries to control various aspects of the imaging process:

It then goes on to describe the boundaries defined by each of the boxes listed above and how they shall be used in various scenarios. Section 14.11.2.2 describes how "interactive pdf processors" can display guidelines for the various page boundaries.

I don't see anything that prevents you from allowing comments outside the printed area of the page. It seems that the PDF spec allows different boundaries to be created specifically so that comments and other marks can be included outside the boundaries of the printed page. Also, it seems that if Bluebeam has enlarged the various boxes to allow content outside the printed page, then PDF-XChange needs to show it or PDF-XChange is the one that is out of compliance with the PDF spec.

[Sean - PDF-XChange]

Hi,

You're right that the specification doesn't explicitly forbid placing annotations outside the page bounds, but it also doesn't guarantee that viewers will display or handle them consistently. This is detailed in § 12.5.2 Note 1 from ISO 32000-2:2020 (PDF 2.0 Specification):

"NOTE 1 — Although an annotation’s Rect entry may specify coordinates that fall partially or entirely outside the boundaries defined by the page’s MediaBox (or CropBox if present), the behaviour of PDF processors when rendering such annotations is implementation-dependent. Processors may choose to clip, ignore, or otherwise modify the appearance of annotations located outside the visible page area."

In other words, whilst it's possible, it's unwise - because the relevant PDF software is not bound by the specification to display it. This means that you are likely to get inconsistent results from program to program, which of course results in problems for all concerned (as is often experienced by Bluebeam users, as mentioned earlier in this thread).

In any case, it's a little academic to debate the specifics of the specification - if our head developer has vetoed the idea of this happening, it's quite simply not going to happen. Sorry that we can't accommodate that for you, but I hope you can understand why.

Kind regards,