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-AA
in the sizes 8-17 as I don't like fuzzy fonts). I agree that bitmap fonts
give better results, but only if they are not scaled. What also goes wrong
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. 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.
They have to, if say, the desktop-guide would give that information it would
save them (and me, as my girlfriend wants to be able to read and write
Chinese (simplified)) a lot of headaches.
> > 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).
And the same fonts are chosen for the same name. fontconfig plays it's own
little role, just as the core font protocol does. And pango and qt as
wrappers around the font system.
Paul de Vrieze