[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective. display perferct?
On Monday 30. June 2008 09:14:43 Dave Pawson wrote: > > Now, what specifies a passing test should be separated into several > > points, since applications typically can pass one and fail another. I > > suggest these points to be something along the lines of > > a) Loading the test data and displaying it on screen (correctly ;) > > b) Saving the loaded document out again and not loosing information. > > c) Having GUI to alter the ODF feature to all the supported values. > > 'displaying it on screen correctly'? > > Did you read the threads on pixel perfect/display perfect? Yes, I did. There is a difference between different odf-features. Clearly having align-justified as a supported feature is not really that hard. It either works or it doesn't. Weather the right font is used, or the font-kerning is on etc etc is not part of this ODF-feature. Then we have features like table borders, in OOo (at least 2 years ago, when I tested it) table borders were drawn above the cell-separator while in the spec it was suppost to on the cell separator. So a border of 2pt was drawn 1pt too high up. This kind of details certainly can be tested and marked as wrong; they are in the spec. So, the quality of the text-rendering engine is certainly an issue that affects the quality of the overall experience. But I am convinced it is not up to the ODF conformity people to check this. Next to that, there is a nicely licensed library to do so called 'text shaping' which is a major reason for the differences. If more odf implementations can reuse this component, the problem will mostly solve itself ;) This library is called HarfBuzz and gtk's Pango and the Qt library already share it. Feel free to open a bugreport with OOo to make them use it too ;) > I've yet to see a definition of 'correctly' as used above that falls within > ODF specification. We couldn't come up with it. If you're taking the same > position can you define it Thomas? Two parts (all IMOHO); * as far as the spec is detailed, this should be fully supported in the implementation. See the table-border example above. * I think it makes sense to test individual ODF-features. Not a whole document with a hundred features and test if it doesn't match up. Where there is ambiguity in the specification (for a specific feature) we just need to be correct against things like typography rules or other relevant external specifications. See also this part of my original mail; > For interoperability [feature testing] will get you a long way, > but there are lots > of implementation details that may not be covered by the feature matrix. > One good example is the basic of linebreaking. See > http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2262 for some research I did on this > topic in the past (sorry, image links broken) > The correct typographical (in case of text) or otherwise correct displaying > of a certain concept warrents a separate set of tests. -- Thomas Zander
This is a digitally signed message part.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]