Well, PDF and PostScript initially start with points, not with
millipoints. So you have to choose between one of the two coordinate
systems. I chose points because it generates smaller output files as the
millipoint coordinate system created too many zeros. I don't think this
will cause confusion. It's only a factor of 1000 which is easily handled
in out brains. Had I chosen millipoints for both, I think we might have
had a problem in PDF with font sizes. I dimly remember a related problem
in PDFGraphics2D. But at any rate it's good to have the same output
coordinate system for both PDF and PS because now you can easily compare
the values in a text editor, provided you know how to disable the
encoding filters for PDF. :-) Another point is that the Graphics2D
implementations don't depend on the coordinate system of the layout
engine at all. There, SVG dictates mostly what's coming in. What makes
the code a little more complicated (/1000f everywhere) in the renderers
makes it easier in the Graphics2D implementations.

On 21.08.2005 20:41:41 Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 08:56:09PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I'm currently working on the PS renderer and as part of that I tried to
> > factor out more common code between the PDF and PS renderers. As a
> > result of that I already have some of the more important features
> > (borders and viewports) working locally. But this meant switching the PS
> > renderer's own coordinate system from millipoints to points because PDF
> > works in points. At the moment I'm looking at what this means for
> > PSGraphics2D which still operates on millipoints. I think I should
> > change that, too. I don't think this should have any negative effects on
> > anybody, since the output will still look the same. Do I maybe miss
> The layout system works with millipoints. Is this discrepancy between
> areas and renderers not an endless source of errors and confusion?

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to