In Keyline Classic, minimum and maximum dimensions (e.g. width, height or format limits) can be defined exclusively for printing machines.
For finishing machines such as cutters, folding machines or saddle stitchers, this restriction is deliberately not provided.
🖨️ Why does this rule only apply to printing machines?
For printing machines, the format to be processed is clearly defined:
Keyline knows the raw sheet format, the imposition logic and the resulting print format.
This allows the system to reliably check:
Is the format within the machine’s minimum/maximum dimensions?
Does the product fit into the printable area?
Is the selected machine technically suitable?
This check is technically unambiguous.
⚠️ Grammage can of course optionally be defined for all production resources. ⚠️
✂️ Why not for cutting, folding or other finishing processes?
After printing, a product may:
be trimmed on different sides
be cut several times
be finished in several stages
be produced oversized or undersized
include bleed, overhangs or safety margins
In Classic, Keyline does not know which side is actually being cut or in what sequence individual processing steps take place.
As a result, the system simply does not know the exact final format after each individual step reliably enough to validate strict minimum or maximum dimensions.
🧠 Why this limitation makes sense
An incorrect dimension check would be more dangerous than no check at all:
Production routes could be blocked incorrectly
valid orders would be considered technically “not possible”
workflows would be restricted artificially
This is why Keyline Classic deliberately focuses on what can be validated unambiguously — namely printing machines.
🚀 Outlook: Keyline Next
In Keyline Next, the machine and production task logic is being structured in much greater detail.
Production resources and process steps are configured in an even more structured way, so that more complex dependencies and formats can also be represented more clearly and automatically in future.