At 10:16 PM 8/01/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>On 2005-01-09 14:43+1000 Andrew Roach wrote:
>>>Now moving back to the old topic of font characterization, I think we have
>>>arrived at consensus there so it is time to implement it. Andrew, are you
>>>game to do that over the next few days? I hope the answer is yes, but if
>>>no, let us know so some other developer has the chance to take that on.
>>It will be a few days before I will have a chance to look into it, but by
>>mid week I should be able to start doing a little work on it. If anyone
>>has the time to start before I can, just let me know so we are not
>>duplicating things. If I do it, I plan to write the parser first, then
>>work backwards from there.
>Note, if we adopt the <bold/>, etc., syntax like I discussed, the parsing
>is reasonably trivial because whenever you run into "<" either the next
>several letters match one of these ~15 special tags ending in "/>" or they
>don't. (For a list of those special tags see the compact table at the end
>of my last post on this subject.) If you have a valid tag, you merely change
>the value of the font attribute (font-weight for this example) and continue
>on with the string with nothing else to worry about until you hit the next
>Do you agree with this simple "empty xml tag" approach? If not, we
>should discuss it.
I am pretty easy either way. I am more used to the two-tag <b></b> system,
but have also worked with the "empty xml tag" approach too. I don't think
the parsing would be any more difficult for one approach than the other.
Which format were you leaning towards, you used two in your earlier posts:
"<bold This is a bold string with <bolder this phrase\> being a subset of
the string in still weightier type.\>"
"<bold/>This is a bold weight font. <bolder/>This is even bolder. <medium/>
This is a normal weight font, <light/> but this is light, and <lighter/>
this is lighter still."
I've not come across "open ended" XML tags used like in that second example
before, where they just toggle a setting. Usually with the <bold/> type
syntax, with trailing back slash, only the internal content of the tag is
stylised with decoration, so that first example would work according to the
way XML usually works, but the second would not. So the types of XML tags I
am familiar with have syntax like:
"<bold>This is a bold weight font.</bold> <bolder>This is even bolder.</bolder>
This is a normal weight font, <light but this is light,/> and <lighter
this is lighter still./>"
>Depending on how that discussion is resolved, I may decide to do the
>programming myself, but right now I have to concentrate on finishing off the
>changes to ps.c so my earliest time scale for dealing with font attribute
>changes is similar to yours. Anyhow, I will keep in close touch with you on
>this so we don't end up duplicating each other's efforts.
ok, will do !