ODS PDF vs RTF - same PROC REPORT but output differs!

[Andy_Begg]

Hello,

In my PROC REPORT I am creating both PDF and RTF files.

When I specify a long footnote the RTF accommodates it on one line where as the PDF flows onto the next line.

For the sake of the example say the footnote is:

footnote1 "This is the exceptionally long footnote that is causing a problem";

The RTF output would display it as follows (fits onto one line):

This is the exceptionally long footnote that is causing a problem

The PDF would display it as follows (flows onto the next line):

This is the exceptionally long footnote that is causing

a problem

Does anyone have an idea what would be causing this? It's almost as if the page sizes are different between the two formats.

Regards

Andrew

[ballardw]

Did you specify the same style for both output formats? The default RTF and PDF may use different font sizes. Also the margin settings may be different for the different destinations.

[Andy_Begg]

Yes they both use the same template.

[Cynthia_sas]

Hi:

  But the fact is that RTF and PDF measure things differently. For example, if you specified font sizes as just relative numbers (without a unit of measure), then RTF would convert the size of the font to TWIPS (twentieths of a printers point), while PDF uses Point sizes. So, in fact, the same template could result with different font sizes used for each document. And, depending on the system options in effect, such as orientation, the page margins might be different. Depending on how you create an RTF file, the Word.dot template could/might change the margins on file open.

  For true debugging, I'd recommend working with Tech Support.

cynthia

[Andy_Begg]

Both fonts are specified as 9pt and use the Courier New font.

The margins are specified in cm.

[RW9]

There will be small differences as have been mentioned above, and also other tiny things which can change outputs.  You will notice it a lot, even the same program run on different systems can shows slight differences - try a compare between RTF files on different systems, you may find that a column shows as different because its a minute fraction off.  This is because RTF is an interpreted markup language.  Each time it is loaded the Word (or RTF reader) installed on your particular system, with your particular settings, and the output generated by a specific SAS setup on a system, can generate slightly different results.  I would suspect with your particular problem that there is a column default hidden behind PDF somewhere which doesn't allow room for the full footnote.  Going to be difficult to track it down though.  Why not just produce the RTF, then print that from Word to PDF? Alternatively post a small sample data/proc report with your template so that we can re-run locally and see what comes out.