Also +1. I haven't personally focused a lot of attention on line-stacking, to
include leading calculation, other than to observe that we don't exactly _have_
a line-stacking-strategy, other than a de facto one that seems to meet the
partial requirements for 2 possibilities. :-) I'm not sanguine over it - I have
been assuming that we will address this in our rework, and maybe that has led to
ignoring the possibility of doing some simple, quick fixes.
To my way of thinking, the current test results would then have to be incorrect,
so why keep 'em around? :-)
Regards,
Arved
Quoting Kelly Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> +1 for committing it. I've always thought there was something a little off
> in our line spacing, I just couldn't put my finger on it.
>
> Just because we have a test suite, doesn't mean we should let them hold us
> up from fixing problems :-) I've encountered this before on other projects
> that test by comparing graphical output... if you change even one small
> thing it causes all the tests to fail, so you redo your golden copies and
> hand check everything. It's not the best test strategy IMHO, but it's
> better
> than nothing.
>
> -Kelly
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Wyman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 4:04 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Modification in line placement
> >
> >
> > If it fixes my problem, (selfishly asking) do it.
> >
> >
> > John H. Wyman
> > 5160 Darry Lane
> > Dublin, OH 43016
> > (614)-889-0698
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Wyman Genealogy Site <http://www.wyman.org>
> > Francis Wyman Assoc email List
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FrancisWymanAssoc
> > Wyman Family Genealogy Forum <http://genforum.genealogy.com/wyman/>
> > The Wyman Surname Message Board
> > <http://www.familyhistory.com/messages/messages.asp?category=s
> > urname&for
> > um=Wyman>
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> > Of Karen Lease
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:59 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Modification in line placement
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While debugging a strange problem from John Wyman recently, I
> > discovered
> > an inconsistency in how we decide whether a block area has room for
> > another line of text. It works differently on the first line in the
> > block from the remaining lines.
> >
> > This isn't necessarily stupid, at least for some
> > line-stacking-strategy
> > values. However, for the fairly simple one FOP is currently
> > implementing, it can lead to some strange results.
> >
> > I also noticed that the way we are calculating half-leading
> > in BlockArea
> > isn't correct according to the CR. The result is that our actual
> > line-spacing tends to be less than what the stylesheet uses as a
> > line-height value. This is because the "glyph height" of a font
> > (ascender + descender) is typically less than the actual font-size
> > value.
> >
> > The "fix" is trivial, but it will change all existing test results,
> > because the line-spacing will increase! Because of that, I haven't yet
> > committed it. Opinions?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Karen
---------------------------------------------------------------
This mail was sent through the Nova Scotia Provincial Server,
with technical resources provided by Chebucto Community Net.
http://nsaccess.ns.ca/mail/ http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
