[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective. display perferct?
I'm focussing on 'pixel perfect' simply because it is seen as an issue here, i.e. I see no consensus or definition. Simpler compliance is not an issue, but equally important. 2008/6/30 Thomas Zander <firstname.lastname@example.org>: >> How would you define an objective test for measuring +-2pt? >> Is that practical? >> This seems to be moving towards 'pixel perfect' which seemed >> to be impractical. > > 2 pt equals 0.7 millimeters, that's a pretty objective measurement IMOHO... > Just set the display to 100% and grab your ruler. (or 200% and measure it to > be 1.4mm if you want it to be more accurate) I'm not familiar with the issues, but surely screen resolution comes into this? My 12 inch screen or your 36 inch screen? > > I must be missing something, since this sounds easy to me :) I'm led to believe it is not. > I'm defining 'correct' as following the rules, either from ODF or from the > specifications ODF leans on. Which includes the typographical rules. I'll agree if they are explicitly referenced. Otherwise no. Your assumptions won't agree with others. >> If we can call up typography references without it being in the spec >> we can call up anything? >> -1 > > Its not like there are a dozen ways to do correct typography ;) So, I disagree > with you here. I'd presume to say that you don't agree with the rest of the worlds typographers Thomas? Hence to assume correct typography is generally agreed is ... presumptious? Even 12 ways is too many for a specification? > If the specification states we do drop-caps, I just get my typography book out > and read up on the concept to find out how to do it correctly. In practice > there is no ambiguity, you are just required to get the information > elsewhere. And the US book, the Japanese book? Not practical? > Or, in other words, if we focus completely on pixel precision I am sure that > in 3 years our work is irrelevant and out of scope for most useages of ODF. +1. I'd like to see some clarity before I'd support its inclusion in the deliverables. > > Next to that, forcing the details of linebreaking to be in the spec is akin to > having a hashing algorithm in OOXML, it just doesn't make much sense to > reproduce ongoing research in a specification. It makes sense to me to reference some definitive spec, as is done with others? > I am wondering *why* you want to have something in there. Which probably means > I am asking you the question; what do you think ODF is meant to do? Provide a means of sharing documents between users without frustration on their part. Due to my background, I tend to focus on the XML on disk. I don't understand fancy glyphs dancing around the screen :-) regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk