From: Andrew Dunbar (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 20:20:09 EST
--- Joaquin Cuenca Abela <email@example.com> wrote: >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 09:01:15AM +1100, Martin
> Sevior wrote:
> > > Layout horizontally with screen units. This
> > > fixes Justification issues.
> > >
> > > We definately need to use screen units to layout
> > > text horizontally. I see now why we really need
> > > Tomas's single units system. Since the width of
> > > a text string varies with font size in a way
> > > is not directly proportional to size size.
> > I don't think this is the correct solution,
> > because it makes printing have different
> > linebreaks than screen. We need to do the layout
> > with layout units on layout fonts.
> IMO, we need to remove the distinction between the
> layout and the screen fonts.
> Then, instead of throwing the whole run to your
> favourite OS drawing routine, we have to place on
> screen each character of the run as if its width was
> linearly scalable from its high resolution width.
> That way, you will get the characters in the same
> position on screen and on the printer.
> You will see that some characters will overwrite a
> little bit of the next character. That's ok. Very
> few characters do that ('m' and 'w', specially), and
> well, MS Word also has this little nuance :)
> If you try to split runs when the divergence will be
> too much, you will finish with one run for each 2 or
> 3 characters (which will kill our perf.), or you
> will finish with runs that overwrite themselves
> (unacceptably) too much.
I've also been thinking about this for a while and I
don't think it's practical to do it this way for
typical Views - especially when you think about
complex languages, justification, hyphenation, and
other stuff which will interact with each-other.
I do think we should do a "Print Preview" View this
way though if we're not already.
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 24 2003 - 20:23:08 EST