Re: interpretation of rotate= attribute

Hi,

There's a small problem with the text destined for the specification. 
See my small addition in-line.

Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Monday, April 18, 2005, 10:20:41 PM, bulia wrote:
>
>...
>
>We have now clarified this. The text in the spec is:
>
>  
>
>>>A comma- or space-separated list of <number>s must be provided
>>>provided. The first <number> specifies the supplemental rotation that
>>>must be applied to the glyphs corresponding to the first character
>>>within this element or any of its descendants, the second <number>
>>>specifies the supplemental rotation that must be applied to the
>>>glyphs that correspond to the second character, and so on.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>If more <number>s are provided than there are characters, then the
>>>extra <number>s must be ignored.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>If more characters are provided than <number>s, then for each of
>>>these extra characters the rotation value specified by the last
>>>number must be used.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>This supplemental rotation must have no impact on the rules by which
>>>current text position
>>>
is calculated

>>> as glyphs get rendered.
>>>      
>>>
>
>In consequence, in the case where the list of rotations is of length 1
>(a  single rotation), all the characters rotate. Batik is thus correct
>here.
>
>Please let us know within two weeks if this does not sufficiently
>clarify this part of the spec.
>  
>
Regards,
Craig Northway