Hi fop devs. There is discussion on www-st...@w3.org about hypenation dictionary formats, and FOP was mentioned. Does someone have the knowledge to comment there?
----- Forwarded message from John Daggett <jdagg...@mozilla.com> ----- From: John Daggett <jdagg...@mozilla.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:36:59 -0800 (PST) To: www-style list <www-st...@w3.org> Cc: l...@w3.org, jfkth...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [css3-text] Hyphenation Resources Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1971349164.157469.1296545819806.javamail.r...@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> Looking at this a tiny bit more, it appears that the AH format is actually based on FOP: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/1.0/hyphenation.html I'm curious if folks working on XSL/FOP feel that the formats and algorithms used for automated hyphenation have been sufficiently flushed out enough to allow for a common format? Or would it be better to allow user agents room to innovate and then define something later? John Daggett cc'ing Liam Quinn ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Daggett" <jdagg...@mozilla.com> To: "www-style list" <www-st...@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2011 4:15:08 PM Subject: [css3-text] Hyphenation Resources The current CSS3 Text spec defines a 'hyphenation-resource' @-rule: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#hyphenation-resource This was based on a similar property defined in CSS3 GCPM: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/#the-hyphenate-resource-property However, neither of these reference or define a syntax for the hyphenation resource. Effectively, these are UA-specific resources when defined this way. As such, I don't see any reason for supporting either the @-rule or the property in the current form; they're both effectively vendor-specific properties with *no* interoperability between user agents. I think the format should be defined/referenced explicitly or it should be removed from the spec and left to a vendor-specific property. For example, Antenna House uses this syntax: http://www.antennahouse.com/product/ahf50/hyp_dictionary.htm Would this be a suitable format to require? Or is there another publicly available format that would also suffice? Maybe something from TeX would work? What does Prince use? I think one argument will be that CSS doesn't specify formats for other types of resources such as images. But in the case of images there were already well-supported image types, so it wasn't really necessary to specify these to achieve some form of interoperability. The same is not true for hyphenation dictionaries. Regards, John Daggett ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/