(some comments inline...) On 13.12.2005 22:02:52 JBryant wrote: > Hi, Jeremias, > > > Jay, if you'd like to help systematic testing here that would > > be fantastic. Please note that quite a few test cases already > > exist in test/layoutengine/standard-testcases (everything that > > starts with "external-graphic" and "instream-foreign-object"). > > Please note that the size calculations for both formatting > > objects use the same code (AbstractGraphicsLayoutManager) which > > means that fixing one, fixes the other, too. Having more test > > cases like the existing ones would be great and is the first > > important step towards fixing all remaining problems. > > Well, I wrote some XSLT code that produced 124 test files. Here's a > typical file: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <fo:root xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format";> > <fo:layout-master-set> > <fo:simple-page-master master-name="only" > margin-top="1in" margin-left="1in" > margin-right="1in" margin-bottom="1in"> > <fo:region-body region-name="only"/> > </fo:simple-page-master> > </fo:layout-master-set> > <fo:page-sequence master-reference="only"> > <fo:flow flow-name="only"> > <fo:block> > <fo:external-graphic > src="tooWideGraphic.jpg" > content-height="auto" > content-width="468px" > height="auto" width="auto"/> > </fo:block> > </fo:flow> > </fo:page-sequence> > </fo:root> > > Here's the XML file I used to define the testing: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <test-values> > <test name="content-width"> > <value>auto</value> > <value>scale-to-fit</value> > <value>16.51cm</value> > <value>165.1mm</value> > <value>6.5in</value> > <value>468pt</value> > <value>39pc</value> > <value>468px</value> > <value>100%</value> > </test> > <test name="content-height"> > <value>auto</value> > <value>scale-to-fit</value> > <value>16.51cm</value> > <value>165.1mm</value> > <value>6.5in</value> > <value>468pt</value> > <value>39pc</value> > <value>468px</value> > <value>100%</value> > </test> > <test name="height"> > <value>auto</value> > <value>16.51cm</value> > <value>165.1mm</value> > <value>6.5in</value> > <value>468pt</value> > <value>39pc</value> > <value>468px</value> > <value>100%</value> > </test> > <test name="width"> > <value>auto</value> > <value>16.51cm</value> > <value>165.1mm</value> > <value>6.5in</value> > <value>468pt</value> > <value>39pc</value> > <value>468px</value> > <value>100%</value> > </test> > <test name="image-type"> > <value>gif</value> > <value>jpg</value> > </test> > <test name="image-name"> > <value>tooNarrowGraphic</value> > <value>tooWideGraphic</value> > </test> > </test-values> > > (tooNarrowGraphic and tooWideGraphic are just simple images that are, > respectively, narrower or wider than the content area.) > > I wound up with 124 files rather than 20736 files because I blocked any > test that had more than one value that wasn't "auto". I could generate the > other files, but 124 is about my limit for visually checking PDF files to > see if I got the proper output. > > The good news is that I got the output I expected in all cases (though I > had to check the spec pretty carefully to be sure of that in some cases).
From an implementor's point of view, blocking files with more than one non-auto value may not be ideal because sometimes combination with more restrictions uncover problems. On the other side, the various widths you used are rather testing the property subsystem than the image layout code. Also, it's not necessary to test different image formats. The code is the same. The only thing here is to make sure that the image loaders are reporting the image's intrinsic size correctly. I'd rather go after things like a width bigger and smaller than the available space or than the image size, respectively. > I figure I'll skip checking them all into your testing system, as it would > be massive overkill, but I thought you might want to know the results of > my testing. If you do want them (or some subset of them), let me know. > > Also, if you'd like me to programatically generate test files for other > elements or properties, let me know. It's not hard to do. > > > Concerning your suggestion of a "scale-down-to-fit" I'd say that > > this is not necessary provided I've understood your requirement. > > I can certainly get by without it, but it seems like a nice convenience > feature. It's in the 1.1 spec, so maybe I'll get to use it someday. I didn't know it was in the 1.1 spec. That changes the situation, of course. I was under the impression that the option is not necessary but I guess from a user's point of view this is easier than doing strange property combinations like I suggested. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
