2008/6/12 Peter Dolding <>:
> Pixel perfect not a good target.
I think we all agree it's not achievable. Makes an easily remembered
phrase though :-)
> Location and size perfect scaled up
> or down to page should be 100 percent acquirable without question.
Agree, but only when constrained by a 'profile' (if that is what we
are going to call different use cases).
In a desktop environment, where printing is used.
If
> same document is printed A4 and A5 and user wishes the A5 document
> should only be a smaller form of the A4 document. Scalable formating.
-1. Scaling and 'location and size' need to be described better.
Are we talking about a printed output from an application, or screen
positioning?
Using printed output is far easier (though yet again it is a manual test, not
automatable)
Take a word processor instance. Print it out using A4 setting. Measure
position of (some part of the content). Should be x,y mm +- z mm wrt top left.
That's a usable metric. Is that a fair definition of 'pixel perfect' for this
profile?
Perhaps users want scaling too. I don't know.
> Cures the printer issues too scaled to the size the printer supports.
> This kind of perfection is what print shops want. So when you print
> a document its exactly how the customer wanted it even on a proof.
> Not all times do you need to print a document out full size. Its
> cheep to print a draft smaller if you are just checking layout saves
> ink and paper.
Again, testing and draft output could be different.
Now we have a profiled description of 'pixel perfect'.
Anyone not OK with that?
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
