From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24846 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Oct 2003 18:00:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-desktop-research-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-desktop-research@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-desktop-research@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 31534 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2003 18:00:12 -0000 X-Cert-subject: /C=US/ST=Oklahoma/L=Oklahoma/O=SNU/CN=mail.gentoo.org/Email=postmaster@gentoo.org From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-desktop-research@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:00:08 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200310091121.05738.pauldv@gentoo.org> <200310091646.19917.pauldv@gentoo.org> <1065713837.3824.56.camel@rivendell> In-Reply-To: <1065713837.3824.56.camel@rivendell> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-UID: 201 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_pIah/guL9X5wjbg"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200310092000.09203.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Subject: Re: [gentoo-desktop-research] One research problem we could research X-Archives-Salt: f3d66e29-94ec-4b3e-b928-d25f903adde3 X-Archives-Hash: 56d81274f29aa470092cd7e1b6930cbd --Boundary-02=_pIah/guL9X5wjbg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 09 October 2003 17:37, foser wrote: > > > > I think that everyone agrees that ragged fonts are ugly (not rendered as > > intended). This happens mainly without aa. Personally I use aa for fonts > > that are outside the "normal range", so I would like that we try to make > > things look ok with both. > > If you don't use AA you shouldn't be using TTF fonts, it's a whole > different setup. In one way i agree with users that in essence good > bitmap fonts are better for the desktop, but good bitmap fonts cost $$$. Well, actually the ttf fonts are the best looking on my system (yes and non= =2DAA=20 in the sizes 8-17 as I don't like fuzzy fonts). I agree that bitmap fonts=20 give better results, but only if they are not scaled. What also goes wrong= =20 sometimes is ps fonts. > > > For non-latin, I think we should look into making clear what needs to be > > done for making it look good, which packages should be installed etc. N= ot > > all people who would use those fonts know that. > > I believe they do, otherwise they're stuck with incomplete charsets or > characters from different packs with different look. Anyway, this is all > part of a much bigger picture. They have to, if say, the desktop-guide would give that information it woul= d=20 save them (and me, as my girlfriend wants to be able to read and write=20 Chinese (simplified)) a lot of headaches. > > > > We can at least identify the misrendered ones. (At least with -core, wi= th > > qt, and with gtk2/pango). Those should render approximately the same, > > sometimes they don't. That might be fixable. > > One and the same font renders the same everywhere, only config settings > influence this (well except for OO maybe). And the same fonts are chosen for the same name. fontconfig plays it's own= =20 little role, just as the core font protocol does. And pango and qt as=20 wrappers around the font system. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Researcher Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --Boundary-02=_pIah/guL9X5wjbg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/haIpbKx5DBjWFdsRAgWQAJ9yF52d4FfRjzlBcFIkjiKmD4a3BgCfVLbF LgPoab13RWOswxvenpR59Ls= =Y41s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_pIah/guL9X5wjbg--