Still trying to fix my problem with letter-spacing and fixed width
spaces. Do I understand that correctly that XSL-FO's view of
letter-spacing is different than, say, PDF's? PDF's character spacing
(PDF 1.4, 5.2.1) is designed so it advances the cursor for each (!)
character by the Tc value. FO
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Point 3: Yes, for tables, you will somehow need to keep track of the
various columns. I don't know the details of the current table support
in RTF in detail so I can't help off-hand. Maybe Peter Herweg can help
some more.
Currently the class TableContext keeps track of
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Still trying to fix my problem with letter-spacing and fixed width
spaces. Do I understand that correctly that XSL-FO's view of
letter-spacing is different than, say, PDF's? PDF's character spacing
(PDF 1.4, 5.2.1) is designed so it advances the cursor for each (!)
On 01.03.2006 15:30:09 Luca Furini wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Still trying to fix my problem with letter-spacing and fixed width
spaces. Do I understand that correctly that XSL-FO's view of
letter-spacing is different than, say, PDF's? PDF's character spacing
(PDF 1.4, 5.2.1) is
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
The recommendation states that The algorithm for resolving the adjusted
values between word spacing and letter spacing is User Agent dependent.
(7.17.2 in the candidate recommendation), so I think this is not a wrong
behaviour: it just assumes that word spaces have
On 01.03.2006 16:44:39 Luca Furini wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
The recommendation states that The algorithm for resolving the adjusted
values between word spacing and letter spacing is User Agent dependent.
(7.17.2 in the candidate recommendation), so I think this is not a wrong
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 08:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You changed the Writer.write to StringBuffer operations. I'd say
that appending to a StringBuffer is much slower than writing
directly to a BufferedOutputStream. There was a comparison between
static concatenation, concatenation of Strings
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38821.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
15 matches
Mail list logo
