Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] (1)(f) and (1)(g) -- audience and working language

["Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/12 Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>:
>> 2008/6/12 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:
>
>>> 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.)
>
>
Ok lets start off with a few basics.   There is a 3 reason why PDF is
preferred over word for printing tasks.  Its called embeddable fonts
and printer independant placement information and flat format.

Word has a really bad beast option.  Printer Dependant Measurements
saved in document with no printer independent placement information no
way to convert this without have the printer driver install on machine
to look up what the ratios should have been to convert to another
printer.  So it guesses and screws documents up.  Next problem
Microsoft own printer independent ratios change between word versions.
 Poor users is sent straight to stuffed document hell.   This is
something that should be 100 percent forbid in ODF.  Call it a MS
design flaw and quality control issue.  Strange thing MS Publisher
does not have this issue with its files.  So someone at Microsoft does
know how to keep a size.

Next font metrics and appearance issues.  Embedding fonts and being
able to use them cures the font metrics issues.  Of course document is
larger price of compadiblity.   This still of course leaves other
issues like font hinting to correct font appearance problems that
still needs to be resolved for all.

Pixel perfect not a good target.  Location  and size perfect scaled up
or down to page should be 100 percent acquirable without question.  If
same document is printed A4 and A5 and user wishes the A5 document
should only be a smaller form of the A4 document.  Scalable formating.
 Cures the printer issues too scaled to the size the printer supports.
  This kind of perfection is what print shops want.  So when you print
a document its exactly how the customer wanted it even on a proof.
Not all times do you need to print a document out full size.  Its
cheep to print a draft smaller if you are just checking layout saves
ink and paper.

Peter Dolding