[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 Peter Dolding <oiaohm@gmail.com>: > Pixel perfect not a good target. I think we all agree it's not achievable. Makes an easily remembered phrase though :-) > Location and size perfect scaled up > or down to page should be 100 percent acquirable without question. Agree, but only when constrained by a 'profile' (if that is what we are going to call different use cases). In a desktop environment, where printing is used. 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. -1. Scaling and 'location and size' need to be described better. Are we talking about a printed output from an application, or screen positioning? Using printed output is far easier (though yet again it is a manual test, not automatable) Take a word processor instance. Print it out using A4 setting. Measure position of (some part of the content). Should be x,y mm +- z mm wrt top left. That's a usable metric. Is that a fair definition of 'pixel perfect' for this profile? Perhaps users want scaling too. I don't know. > 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. Again, testing and draft output could be different. Now we have a profiled description of 'pixel perfect'. Anyone not OK with that? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]