First of all, thanks for your comments: I really tend to forget in a short
time all the details concerning white space!
Manuel Mall wrote:
Glyphs are only allowed to be merged if they carry the same / matching
set of property values. Personally I would not be concerned if we
therefore limit that logic to within a LM. While it is possible that
someone could write something like
<fo:block><fo:inline>a</fo:inline><fo:inline>̈</fo:inline>
and the a and ̈ could be combined into an &x00e4; IMO this is a
pretty degenerated case.
Seems reasonable: so, we can delete glyph substitution from the list of
things we must consider in this phase.
But, now I think of it, we must consider kerning too, so the list does not
get any thinner!
my summary is:
a) We both seem to want the same outcome, that is add required features
and at the same time get rid of some of the workarounds currently used.
Agreed.
b) We both agree that the character by character analysis is done at
Line LM level.
Agreed.
c) Your initial thought is that the Line LM should then provide enough
information to the LMs to generate their Knuth sequences while my
initial thought is that the Line LM generates the Knuth sequences and
provides enough information for the LMs to generate their areas.
If you agree with this summary may be we can concentrate on discussing
the pros and cons of the two approaches mentioned in item c) above?
Ok, I'll send a new message soon!
Regards
Luca
