- From: Craig Northway <craign@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:19:51 +1100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: bulia byak <buliabyak@gmail.com>, www-svg@w3.org
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
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 02:20:34 UTC