[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 Peter Dolding <firstname.lastname@example.org>: >> 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). I submit that this may presently be the 95% case of present usage of e.g. an ODF text or presentation document :-) >> 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? Line and character placement. The WWW Acid3 test turns this into "pixel perfect" by making the test download given test fonts as well - if an ODF is layout-perfect, then with the same font it *should* be pixel-perfect (unless I've missed something). > Perhaps users want scaling too. I don't know. Layout-perfect should solve that. > Now we have a profiled description of 'pixel perfect'. > Anyone not OK with that? Or "layout-perfect". As I say, if a standard test font (what's free enough? I suppose a test font can be created ... Latin, CJK, symbols ...) can turn that into "pixel-perfect", then that's very good indeed. - d.