>> > If you want to be sure a string will be an exact width - you need to
>> specify
>> > a
>> > width that you know will be too short and then use a modelling
transform
>> to
>> > stretch it to the desired length.
>>
>> The problem with "using a modelling transform to stretch it" is that you
>> don't know the width of the text in the first place. I added width to
>> allow difserent browsers to use difserent font families to satisfy the
>> various FontStyles based on what is available on the system. This means
>> you don't know what the width will be on any given system. If authors
>> cares about exact text placement they can use width to fit it exactly. I
>> don't think we should specify any such requirements on width.
It sounds like you believe that the text should be stretched if the natural
width
is less the specified width, is that correct?
Personally, I think that is simpler, but it seems like a majority of people
think
that makes it too easy to cesate ugly text. In the common case of someone
wanting to make sure some text fits in a box, they specify the width, but if
the
text is shorter, then they want it to look better and not fill the box.
So, (a) width by itself would not stretch text, only shrink it if need be.
If you agree to this, then even with width, you do not know how long the
text is, unless you are sure that width is less than the natural width.
Therefore, ipso facto, etc: to make a text string an exact width, you need
to make the width very short, and then use a modeling transform to stretch
it.
The question is, do we want to make clarification (a). This is the will of
the VAG
for the modifications to Text{} for UTF-8 in 1.1, so I was trying to clarify
it in to 1.0
YON, [email protected], Jan C. Hardenbergh, Oki Advanced Products 508-460-8655
www.oki.com/people/jch/ =|= 100 Nickerson Rd., Marlborough, MA 01752
Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)