[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: getObjectExtent and text
Everyone -- I am concerned that there may be a fundamental misunderstanding about getObjectExtent and text... At 04:06 PM 4/20/2009 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote: >- Changed the calculated box value for the text string to take into >account the decender of the 'g' As I read this, it implies that the gOE result would be different if there were not a "g" in the string. That is *not* what we have argued and decided. See [1], where it says: "In particular, the calculations assume that each glyph extends vertically from the bottom-line to the top-line of the font (see Figure 11, CGM:1999 section 6.7.3.2) -- i.e., the vertical extent of each glyph includes the full ascent and descent values for the font, regardless of whether the particular glyph actually has ascenders and/or descenders." I.e., the vertical extent is dependent on the font, but independent of the particular contents of the string. I.e., it is not the minimal bounding box of the stroked text. I.e., it is dependent on the *font metrics*, not the individual glyph metrics. Have a look at CGM:1999, "Figure 11, section 6.7.3.2". Back to the gOE tests ... Stuart, do your tests reference results reflect this? I.e., is the vertical extent equal to the appropriately-sized (by text attributes et al) Bottomline-to-Topline font metric? Everyone -- does this match your understanding of our past issue resolutions about gOE(text)? -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]