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:
> > 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.

> Jeremias Maerki


Reply via email to