Hi, Just a few precisions:
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 22.10.2009 21:15:40 Simon Pepping wrote: <snip/> >> Can you summarize what the branch tries to achieve? > > I'll try. In short: it provides the Tagged PDF feature that some people > have always wanted. > > Long story: Without the accessibility/document structure feature, FOP > simply produces pages with visual content. Visually impaired people need > tools like a screen reader to read document to them. For that the reader > needs to know which parts of a page are important and which are not, and > in which order the elements should be read. It needs to know that a > sentence continues on the next page without stumbling over the page > footer in the middle of the sentence. This is something that the branch doesn’t actually do yet... The header/footer will be read at every new page, in the middle of the sentence. I don’t know yet how to fix that, and I’m not sure if that should be done blindly anyway. It could be imagined that in some elaborate layouts the side-regions have content that the author wants to be read aloud. <snip/> > There's another side-effect to tagged PDF: It allows for better text > extraction from the document. PDF even describes ways to make > round-trips from XML -> PDF -> XML -> PDF if certain conditions were met. > However, we don't do that. Speaking of that, the current code doesn’t insert empty elements (like <fo:block/>) into the structure tree. The corresponding StructElem object /is/ created, but is not linked to its parent. Actually it’s present in the PDF without being referred to by any other object. I think this is inconsistent, and actually wrong since that would cause a loss of information possibly needed by a round-trip transformation. I’m going to change that. <snip/> >>> The vote will last the usual 3 days but, since it???s a non-trivial new >>> feature, if any committer would like more time to review it, feel free >>> to say so and we can extend the vote to 1 week. >> Can you make that 3 working days? > > Does that imply you don't work 7 days a week? ;-) Working days are what > we usually apply here, don't we? Errr... no. At least it’s just by chance if all the votes I’ve launched so far turned out to last 3 working days. I usually just wait that most active committers have voted. Speaking of working days doesn’t make much sense to me anyway since not all committers work on FOP in their day jobs. Some of them may actually be more active at week-ends. All that said, I’m happy to make the vote last longer as Simon requested. And to ensure that it lasts at least 3 working days from now on. Vincent
