On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 16:46, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Thursday 09 October 2003 16:31, foser wrote:
> > Here you already have a problem, the perception of font quality differs
> > per-person and language. Some people really dislike AA (requires
> > different fonts to be good), others use different types of displays,
> > etc. And not latin language users usually know that they need extra
> > packs to have decent support, don't expect anything non-latin to look
> > good by default atm.
> 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 $$$.
> 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. Not 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.
> > Again this is mostly a personal thing and it currently also depends on
> > how you install xfree (this is in flux).
> We can at least identify the misrendered ones. (At least with -core, with 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).
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list