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

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/12 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>:

>> 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 :-)

Ignores Pauls accessibility issues, mobile profile etc. I don't
think profiles can be ignored, IMHO 95% isn't good enough.


>
>
>>> 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.

>> 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).

OK, Line and character positioning. That makes more sense
for text, less for graphics, spreadsheets and presentations.
[[Ignoring fonts for a minute]]
 Were that on an old character display that would be easy.
For print layout it's readable by manual intervention.
How to get from Open Office 'display' to something we could
measure?

Rick Jelliffe suggested a conversion to, say, SVG or xsl-fo
or something that clearly was position oriented in an xml
form. Perhaps that's a way ahead for simple text.



>
>
>> Perhaps users want scaling too. I don't know.
>
>
> Layout-perfect should solve that.

Is scaling defined in ODF? I don't know. If it's not
then it's out of scope?


>
>
>> 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.

Layout perfect (need some tolerances) is good for me...
when applied to text, on a given layout, in  a given media.
With a specified font (do we need a font with n sizes?) which
is readily available, and usable in all/most/some vendor products

I like it.

regards





-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk