3

I have been battling to have URLs appear with borders in my manuscript, and after poking around, it appears the problem is the way I am generating my final PDF output. I cycle through latex -> dvips -> ps2pdf to get my final output and for some reason, the resulting document ends up having very faint borders for URLs --I believe my problem is similar to hyperref url breaking. Incidentally, my other links (cross-references and DOIs) are not affected.

  1. Running pdflatex on minimal example below gives desired result, however, my manuscript can not be processed using pdflatex in its current form; is their a work around for this?
  2. I tried fiddling with pdfborder properties, however, this affects my other internal links...
  3. An alternative would perhaps be to find a substitution to the breakurl package (I currently use a combination of breakurl& sloppy directive to break long URLs), however, I was unable to find a suitable replacement.

I have added some sample outputs below of different approaches I used to try and resolve this issue.

Output using hyperref colourlinks

enter image description here

Output using default pdfborder options --pdfborder(0 0 1)

enter image description here

Output using modified pdfborder options --pdfborder(0 0 10)

enter image description here

Minimal Example

\documentclass[runningheads,a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[citestyle=authoryear,maxnames=3,natbib=true,urldate=long]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{breakurl_hyperref.bib}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{breakurl}

\begin{document}

\sloppy

\title{Issue with breakurl package and hyperref package}

\author{Munthu Wakuda}

\maketitle

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

This is a test citation \citep{Wiltshire2011}...

%\sloppy
\printbibliography
\end{document}

breakurl_hyperref.bib

@report{Wiltshire2011,
title = {{Spatial analysis of archaeological sites in the Western Cape using an integrated digital archive}},
author = {Wiltshire, Nicolas},
institution = {University of Cape Town},
year = {2011},
url = {http://uctscholar.uct.ac.za/R/N8XKKNNCY76DM8GQG33X3C8LCDJ7N6MUKFFKAHMT67HVDJN9TT-03715?func=results-brief},
@note = {Online; accessed February 14, 2013},
urldate = {2012-02-14}
}

Update #1

Added sample usecases of different possible outputs

  • Can it be, that there is no three difference between your three examples (at least no difference in line-breaking)? I don't think that the solution will be in customizing pdfborder – MrD Apr 8 '13 at 20:07
  • @DL6ER, the issue is not with line breaking but with rather with faint borders around URLs. I know its a trivial thing, but I'd love it if my manuscript was consistent :). Incidentally, I use a combination of breakurl package and \sloppy to break long URLs. – lightonphiri Apr 8 '13 at 20:34
  • 1
    Hmm, I just put your example in latex -> dvips -> ps2pdf and the PDF seems ok (x-linux.de/tex/MWE2.pdf), I'm using a up-to-date version of texlive and Linux. What is your setup? Can you add \listfiles to your file to show us, what versions you are using? (For example on my side: biblatex.sty 2013/01/10 v2.5 programmable bibliographies, hyperref.sty 2012/11/06 v6.83m Hypertext links for LaTeX) -- OH -- found a problem! Will append my answer as I will have to show you some screenshots... – MrD Apr 9 '13 at 8:01
1

The link-lineborder-border problem seems to be PDF-reader-depended.


For example (Adobe Reader 9 on Linux):

Adobe

Green border ok, but blue missing.


And the same PDF (Evince 3.4 on Linux):

Evince

All ok.


And again the same PDF (using the new firefox pdf-engine):

Firefox-PDF

All borders missing.


The displayed PDF can be found here.


So what reader are you using? I have printed the PDF on all readers and these are the same, as the linkborders are always removed completely.

  • you are right! I feel sheepish... I primarily use Acrobat Reader 9 on Ubuntu& didn't bother to check output using other readers. I tried viewing document in Okular& borders are there... Thank you :) – lightonphiri Apr 9 '13 at 12:49
  • No problem, haven't known that for sure, just assumed it. So we both got value out of your question :-) +1 for that! – MrD Apr 9 '13 at 13:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.