On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 04:23 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 18.09.2005 13:10:34 Manuel Mall wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:41 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: <snip/> > > > So, for the time being, I have now fop internally standardised the > > meaning of the fop specific "offset" attribute in the fop area tree > > as meaning the distance between the before edges of the parent area > > and the area to be rendered. I have also introduced a new attribute > > called "baselineOffset" which gives the point on the start-edge > > (distance from the before-edge) for the actual alignment line for > > all glyphs in that inline area, i.e. the alignment point in bpd for > > all the glyphs in that area will be on that line. > > Sounds reasonable. Did you find anything in the spec what exactly the > suggested set of trait is? > I believe the relevant sections of the spec are 4.2.6, 4.6 and 7.13 which take quite a bit to digest. However, in the end it seems to boil down to the spec suggesting to carry the actual-baseline-table, dominant-baseline-identifier, alignment-baseline, alignment-point and baseline-shift as traits and let the renderers do some of the placement calculations. May be "alignment-point" is the closest to what I have called baselineOffset.
<snip/> > Jeremias Maerki Manuel