foser <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 15:22, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>> If that is the only way then we might come to the conclusion that the best
>> solution is to wait. I do think though that at least good documentation might
>> be another solution.
> Documenting fonts is like setting defaults : a disaster, what you like
> on your monitor looks pretty bad on another persons LCD, etc. It's so
> much a personal thing that setting up defaults will always upset some
> users. And should such a document support legacy font support (xfs, xft1
> etc. ?). I guess one could set up a document describing what is possible
> in configuring xft2/fontconfig.
If I see correctly, the things that makes ugly fonts :
- bad looking fonts
- missing fonts (so it uses not suited ones)
- badly configured xft*/fontconfig
- software not using last freetype/xft ...
( feel free to add reasons if I missed som)
So, to clarify, we could :
- run some test to see if fonts are ugly in common use in different languages
(I'll do some test cause I have a fresh gentoo)
- go through default available fonts (after having emerged kde and gnome), and
list the ugliest ones
- check the fontconfig, xft configurations
- list known software that doesn't use the good font systems.
Whith that done we'll be able to see where the problems are, wnd decide if we
want to :
- try to get new fonts (many additional set of fonts by default)
- change font configuration
- change software so that they use latest technology (I have seen in the past
some patchs to make this and that use freetype2, I think OpenOffice had such a
patch, but I thougt it was in the main now)
In addition, we can think of making font managment easy for the user. (I wrote
the font managment tool for mandrakeLinux, he had some working features, but
uses old font tools).
>> I did not mean to be western-centered. I was suggesting that we look into
>> improving the fonts. I don't want non-western fonts to be looking worse
>> because of it. Actually did you try sometime to run konsole with
>> LC_CTYPE="zh_CN", it is really ugly, and it should be possible to fix this.
> My point more is that if you set it up for latin charset users (what we
> obviously would do) you might make mistakes you aren't even aware of. It
> needs to be coordinated with asian,arabic,hebrew devs/users for as far
> we have them. There already has been some discussion on setting this up
> in a configurable fashion for different charsets, but that needs the
> improved fontconfig.
btw do we have i18n/fonts gurus @ gentoo?
>> > You should install exactly the same fonts to have the same effect and
>> > thats also a question of installing windows fonts or not. KDE just has
>> > bad font defaults, helvetica everywhere is just a bad choice. Current
>> > fontconfig setups should solve most of these problems afaik.
>> I agree that helvetica is a bad choice, but we might look into making
>> helvetica look not too bad at least in some cases
> The problem usually is that it uses the the standard xfree bitmap stuff,
> you can't make that look good. Just use fontconfig identifiers like
> 'sans' for fonts. That should also make the looks of GTK+ and QT apps
> more alike (for as far this doesn't happen already, been a while since i
> did a KDE install).
>> > afaik OO uses its own (outdated?) freetype etc. Do from source ebuilds
>> > have these problems too ? They could use the system libs and settings.
>> I always use from source openoffice. I don't perceive any font problems. In
>> the from-source version we do indeed use the latest freetype.
> But not the system one (yes im too lazy to look at ebuilds atm ;)) ? If
> there's no real good reason for that, it should be changed.
grepping the ebuild shows :
# Enable Bytecode Interpreter for freetype ...
and in the SRC_URI there is a
email@example.com mailing list