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

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

2008/6/13 Peter Dolding <oiaohm@gmail.com>:

>> In a desktop environment, where printing is used.


> 100 percent sure did not make it clear enough.
>
> Note printers have different dead area space.   The area you cannot
> print on.   Some have zero some may have 3 mm or more of unprintable
> page space.  x,y mm +- z wrt don't really cut it.

> Fixed distance does not really cut it.

> Layout perfect is not that everything is exactly X size.   Its that
> everything is the same ratios or if user chosen compressed slightly in
> one direction but the up down ratios and the left right ratios are
> still correct.   Bit like standard def tv pushed into widescreen tv.
> That is layout perfect.   The layout is correct sizes is up to hell
> but at times that does not matter.

Bottom line, this 'printer (printed?) perfect is a non starter too.


>
> I should never have used size it gave the wrong idea .  To scale is
> more correct . .   Now if everything is ratio perfect two odf programs
> printing on the same size bit of paper and the same printer

Printer independent is a must surely.
Perhaps, if it's only a visual comparative. This is getting worse!

with the
> same fonts should produce exactly the same document.  Other than maybe
> font rendering issues but even then the char sizes should be the same.

Even more flaky at the edges.



>
> Printed from two different printers there has to be allowances for
> some printer caused tolerance issues.  Everything might be to scale
> but one might be slightly larger than the other.

So it's viable with 148 pre-conditions. Even then it's manual,
environment dependent etc etc.

I think I'd need a lot more convincing that this was workable as
a model to take forwards.



>
> Also allowed ratio changing should allow letter and a4 sized documents
> to be printed on each others papers out of size but to scale.

Not something I've found workable, when interchanging documents
US to UK.
Lines per page buggers that up. "See page X" is no longer meaningful.


 Now
> before you say no way Odf printer documents will have to do evil like
> this.   You might have a printer that does 600x600 dpi and another
> that does 750x600 dpi or some other strange number  ODF application
> has to be able to scale document in across and down the page to fit
> the printers resultion.  PDF already part deals with these devils.

I'd bet the ODF standard doesn't. I'm getting the feeling that this
is just a little too far from the standard to be acceptable.
Your knowledge makes that fairly clear Peter.


>
> Printers are a little bit more complex than what people give them
> credit for.  Pixel perfect don't cut it 100 percent because of
> Printers.  Also pixel perfect has issues even displayed on screen.
> Measuring fixed distances its really trying to be pixel perfect.
> Measuring distance to ratio printed is layout perfect.

I doubt anyone would accept screen based comparisons.
This mail has shown that 'layout perfect' is deeply flawed
as a comparator.

Favour please Peter. Could you try and put together
a definition of 'layout perfect', for the definitions page?




>
> Layout perfect should not be effected by draft either if it is there
> is a conversion issue.  Most print runs layout perfect most people
> don't care if its slightly off in sizes as long as everything is to
> ratio most don't notice.  + or - 2 percent of size on A4 will not be
> noticed by most people.  Way off like pushing bits onto next page
> sending formatting out window people don't want that and stands out
> massively that the document is printed wrong.


Unless that 2% pushes a text flow over onto the next page,
leaving a blank page in the chapter where there wasn't one.


Simpler question. Do you think we could constrain testing
for 'layout perfect' sufficiently for it to be acceptable by, say,
Sun, IBM and the EU?
 If so, what is the list of constraints / pre-conditions?
 What sort of results could we expect?






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