Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] My perspective. display perferct?

["Sam Johnston" <samj@samj.net>]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:

I think I'm doing a Rob Weir.

Proposal for consensus: Please respond if you support it.

"There will be no deliverable addressing the ideas of 'pixel perfect' as
used on this list. "

Please respond or you'll have one mans version of consensus.

worksforme (ODF != PDF)

 

2008/7/1 Art Petrzelka <art@complum.com>:

>
> Let's get the right scale here.
>
> My list of must haves:
> correct pagination
> correct margins and tabs
> identical line breaks
> proper scaling - e. g. lines or blocks don't overlap
> font substitution is appropriate and doesn't throw off pagination
> bullets don't turn into an empty rectangle

Nice, but no coconut. What does 'correct', 'proper' mean
The last two are system dependent (installed fonts?) so inapproprite?

I guess identical line breaks is back to typesetting again?
Too close to pixel perfect for me (tell me if I'm wrong).
Identical pagination probably depends on line breaks ultimately
(tell me if I'm wrong), so -1

So this definition, whilst better (loosely named layout perfect in the past)
is still -1 from me.

I'd like something like this, but not if we can't define it.

Iff a rendition of the spec gives enough information to determine where the page breaks should lie then we should test for it. If not (and I don't think it will, and in a way hope it never does) then we cannot, and should not penalise applications for this with our tests (have to be careful with the acid test(s) for example, which are increasingly likely to be bite-sized chunks of testing, say a single table, rather than a complex page layout).

Sam

-- 

Sam Johnston

Australian Online Solutions

http://www.aos.net.au/