I must say (from a pure FOP-POV), that I'm looking forward to see what
Vincent will come up with with your help. WRT font-selection-strategy I
believe that character-by-character will be a huge step forward for our
two FO processors and should cover 98% of all use cases. If anyone needs
more we can always look at it when this happens. I wouldn't think too
much about that, yet, especially since we don't know the exact
requirements that would come up. But I fully share your interpretation
of the issues here.

On 09.09.2005 19:54:38 Victor Mote wrote:
> FOP-devs:
> WRT font-selection-strategy, I think the new aXSL methods provide the means
> to client applications to implement the "character-by-character" option.
> My current reading of the spec is that the "auto" option is merely an
> opportunity, a hook if you will, for an implementation to do something
> fancier than "character-by-character". This whole attribute is actually an
> extension to CSS, which only does character-by-character. The definition of
> "auto" is "The selection criterion given by the contextual characters is
> used in an implementation defined manner." That seems to cover almost
> anything doesn't it? Including character-by-character. The "Note" under
> "auto" seems to confirm this.
> Nevertheless, the example given in the "Note" provides some ideas for other
> algorithms, and seems to suggest that there is room for more than one. So,
> the general framework would seem to include the definition of one or more
> such algorithms, naming each one, and then providing that name through some
> global-ish mechanism like a font-configuration file or other configuration
> option. The font system can then implement the algorithm, perhaps with the
> help of call-back methods to provide, for example, the various pieces of
> contextual text.
> Now, I suggest that the creation and definition of such algorithms should be
> driven by the user base. IOW, if a user wishes to suggest an algorithm for
> font-selection that provides something useful to them, it should be
> considered. I say this partly because I don't seem to have a need for any
> such thing. My general approach is going to be to provide a list of exactly
> one font-family and then (by perusing the log!!) make sure that font-family
> actually got used. If it did not, I'm going to consider my stylesheet to be
> deficient as opposed to the font selection algorithm. In other words, I am
> going to implement my own manual algorithm.
> The other wrinkle that the standard seems to present is qualitative
> judgments like "better quality fonts" and "match each other badly
> stylistically". I know of no way to get this information other than asking
> the user for it. So it is likely that some algorithms will require
> additional information in font-configuration.
> This post does not require any response from anyone. I realize you are
> trying to get a release out the door. I just wanted to document my thoughts
> on the matter for you before they escaped.
> Victor Mote

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to