I must say (from a pure FOP-POV), that I'm looking forward to see what Vincent will come up with with your help. WRT font-selection-strategy I believe that character-by-character will be a huge step forward for our two FO processors and should cover 98% of all use cases. If anyone needs more we can always look at it when this happens. I wouldn't think too much about that, yet, especially since we don't know the exact requirements that would come up. But I fully share your interpretation of the issues here.
On 09.09.2005 19:54:38 Victor Mote wrote: > FOP-devs: > > WRT font-selection-strategy, I think the new aXSL methods provide the means > to client applications to implement the "character-by-character" option. > > My current reading of the spec is that the "auto" option is merely an > opportunity, a hook if you will, for an implementation to do something > fancier than "character-by-character". This whole attribute is actually an > extension to CSS, which only does character-by-character. The definition of > "auto" is "The selection criterion given by the contextual characters is > used in an implementation defined manner." That seems to cover almost > anything doesn't it? Including character-by-character. The "Note" under > "auto" seems to confirm this. > > Nevertheless, the example given in the "Note" provides some ideas for other > algorithms, and seems to suggest that there is room for more than one. So, > the general framework would seem to include the definition of one or more > such algorithms, naming each one, and then providing that name through some > global-ish mechanism like a font-configuration file or other configuration > option. The font system can then implement the algorithm, perhaps with the > help of call-back methods to provide, for example, the various pieces of > contextual text. > > Now, I suggest that the creation and definition of such algorithms should be > driven by the user base. IOW, if a user wishes to suggest an algorithm for > font-selection that provides something useful to them, it should be > considered. I say this partly because I don't seem to have a need for any > such thing. My general approach is going to be to provide a list of exactly > one font-family and then (by perusing the log!!) make sure that font-family > actually got used. If it did not, I'm going to consider my stylesheet to be > deficient as opposed to the font selection algorithm. In other words, I am > going to implement my own manual algorithm. > > The other wrinkle that the standard seems to present is qualitative > judgments like "better quality fonts" and "match each other badly > stylistically". I know of no way to get this information other than asking > the user for it. So it is likely that some algorithms will require > additional information in font-configuration. > > This post does not require any response from anyone. I realize you are > trying to get a release out the door. I just wanted to document my thoughts > on the matter for you before they escaped. > > Victor Mote Jeremias Maerki
