[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] (1)(f) and (1)(g) -- audience and working language
2008/6/12 Dave Pawson <email@example.com>: > 2008/6/12 David Gerard <firstname.lastname@example.org>: >> One data point: As an end-user, the interoperability issue that deeply >> annoys me between different word processors and presentation software >> is layout changes in the same document viewed or printed from >> different applications. (That MS Word notoriously doesn't keep this >> consistent on the same version of Word on the same OS on different >> printers is hair-tearingly frustrating.) Lines ending up on the wrong >> page, etc. Pixel-perfect I can live without, line- and word-placement >> consistency is another matter. > That could get even more grey. Gross line changes are one thing, but > different fonts could result in hyphenation on one implementation, clean > word endings on another. I'm sure a typographer could provide some > reasonable definition of this (slightly more lax) definition of 'look-alike' > or whatever we're going to call it. Character-placement-perfect, line-placement-perfect? I'm sure an implementor could phrase what I'm talking about clearly and unambiguously. (Note that many free fonts try to duplicate proprietary font metrics for just this reason. Failing that, given font bodges could be suggested. But this may be getting ahead of ourselves a bit.) - d.