You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to batik-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Thomas DeWeese <Th...@Kodak.com> on 2004/11/13 22:11:32 UTC
RFC: flowText vs. flowRoot
Hi all,
To date we have had the flowText element that was a Batik
extension. With SVG 1.2 there is now the flowRoot element that
is _very_ similar. I have been working on this and I now have a
fairly complete flowRoot implementation (it supports Bidi properly,
as well as arbitrary flow regions). The one major area it lacks
is the vertical-align property from the old flowText element.
It was easy to support vertical-align in the old case because
the regions were rectangles, it is quite a bit tricker to do for
arbitrary regions. This however is not why I have not implemented
it. The reason I have yet to implement it is that the spec is
_very_ unclear on how it is supposed to work.
Thus at this point I see four major options.
1) Just check in the current implementation (removing
the old flowText extension). The assumed future is that
vertical-align will be clarified and it will be implemented and
in the meantime users of the property will have to stick with
Batik 1.5.2.
2) Refactor the code so that flowText and flowRoot can
live in harmony together. I may refactor flowText out of the
core of GlyphLayout anyway since it is A) possible, B) cleaner.
Thus even if we no longer provided flowText users who needed
vertical align could continue to use it until we provided the
property in flowRoot.
3) Do a quick and dirty implementation for simple rectangular
regions for now. This would let flowText people upgrade and take
advantage of the current stuff, however there is a high likelihood
users will have to update content again when the spec is clarified.
4) Don't check in the new flowText stuff at all, maintain
status quo (perhaps publish as patch in Bugzilla - like
renderingColorSpace). This makes it difficult for the majority
of the population that might not care about vertical-align.
As you might guess I'm leaning towards 2 but 1 is what
I would like to do, at least in the short term. So for people
using flowText what do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: flowText vs. flowRoot
Posted by Thomas DeWeese <Th...@Kodak.com>.
Hi all,
I will delivering the SVG 1.2 update soon. This will have both
the 'current' SVG 1.2 flowRoot implementation as well as Batik's
extension flowText element. The code has been refactored so they
are independent of the core rendering engine. The plan will be
to continue the existence of flowText (Batik extension) as is
until the SVG WG figures out what it's doing and the flowRoot
implementation can be brought in line with the specification.
In the mean time if people want to use the flowRoot stuff they
can with a strong warning that the markup and functionality is _very_
likely to change and evolve with the specification.
>> "Thomas DeWeese" <Th...@Kodak.com> wrote in message
>>> This however is not why I have not implemented
>>> it. The reason I have yet to implement it is that the spec is
>>> _very_ unclear on how it is supposed to work.
>>
> Jim Ley wrote:
>
>> Stick with the old implementation as an extension until the WG provide
>> a clear example of how it is supposed to work.
Jamie Browning wrote:
> I second that. Given current status who knows what is happening in SVG
> 1.2 :-(
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: flowText vs. flowRoot
Posted by Jamie Browning <ja...@exponent.co.uk>.
Jim Ley wrote:
>"Thomas DeWeese" <Th...@Kodak.com> wrote in message
>news:41967884.6000302@Kodak.com...
>
>
>>This however is not why I have not implemented
>>it. The reason I have yet to implement it is that the spec is
>>_very_ unclear on how it is supposed to work.
>>
>>
>
>Stick with the old implementation as an extension until the WG provide a
>clear example of how it is supposed to work.
>
>Jim.
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
I second that. Given current status who knows what is happening in SVG
1.2 :-(
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: flowText vs. flowRoot
Posted by Jim Ley <ji...@jibbering.com>.
"Thomas DeWeese" <Th...@Kodak.com> wrote in message
news:41967884.6000302@Kodak.com...
> This however is not why I have not implemented
> it. The reason I have yet to implement it is that the spec is
> _very_ unclear on how it is supposed to work.
Stick with the old implementation as an extension until the WG provide a
clear example of how it is supposed to work.
Jim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: RFC: flowText vs. flowRoot
Posted by Thomas DeWeese <Th...@Kodak.com>.
Hi Andreas,
> On Saturday 13 November 2004 22:11, Thomas DeWeese wrote:
>> As you might guess I'm leaning towards 2 but 1 is what
>>I would like to do, at least in the short term. So for people
>>using flowText what do you think?
Andreas Streichardt wrote:
> we are heavily relying on flowtext. Option 2 would mean no stress for us but i
> vote for option 1. Flowtext was just an extension and everybody who used it
> should have known that 1.2 was still not ready. So it is their own fault if
> they used it as if it would be a stable feature.
I would agree except for the loss of 'vertical-align', and even
that I wouldn't worry much about except eventually the spec will
clear this up and I think something along these lines will become
available. So people who needed this would be stuck in the
mean time.
> Option 1 means a cleaner batik. That's imho more important ;).
Actually in doing #2 I refactored the code so all of the old
(and new) text flow code is out of the core 'gvt' package. The
new code now lives in a subpackage ('gvt.flow') and the old code
now lives entirely in extensions/svg (where it can be deleted
when flowRoot reaches the full capabilities of flowText). This
turned out to be a fairly simple operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-users-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-users-help@xml.apache.org
Re: RFC: flowText vs. flowRoot
Posted by Andreas Streichardt <st...@globalpark.de>.
On Saturday 13 November 2004 22:11, Thomas DeWeese wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi,
> As you might guess I'm leaning towards 2 but 1 is what
> I would like to do, at least in the short term. So for people
> using flowText what do you think?
we are heavily relying on flowtext. Option 2 would mean no stress for us but i
vote for option 1. Flowtext was just an extension and everybody who used it
should have known that 1.2 was still not ready. So it is their own fault if
they used it as if it would be a stable feature. Option 1 means a cleaner
batik. That's imho more important ;).
Kind regards,
Andreas Streichardt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-users-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-users-help@xml.apache.org
Re: RFC: flowText vs. flowRoot
Posted by Tonny Kohar <to...@kiyut.com>.
Hi,
> As you might guess I'm leaning towards 2 but 1 is what
> I would like to do, at least in the short term. So for people
> using flowText what do you think?
Agree here.
Option 2 is good for everyone (flowRoot and flowText) guy. and still can
be used for experimental and input for the SVG spec maintainers.
Option 1 is good for flowRoot which means better support for 1.2 spec
Regards
Tonny Kohar
--
Sketsa
SVG Graphics Editor
http://www.kiyut.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-users-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-users-help@xml.apache.org