Around 16 o'clock on Mar 7, Owen Taylor wrote: > Perhaps the name PangoFontDescription is confusing. It doesn't describe > a font (or face), rather it is a description of the needs of an > application to Pango. So, there would never be a reason to include > informative information in it. Thanks for the clarification. I see several options for pango then: 1) "face name" wins 2) abstract style/weight wins 3) last set wins 4) Attempt to merge face name and style/weight values (so a face name of 'black' and a style of 'italic' would yield a black italic font). 4) seems likely to be fragile and cause weird effects when faced with unusual fonts. of 1) and 2), I suggest that 1) is a better choice as your abstractions may never capture all of the possible variations (outline anyone?) present in the 'face name'. So, that leaves 3). I think it's a poor choice as it makes the face_name="italic", weight="bold" case very confusing, and leaves us with an imperative spec rather than a declarative one. At least, that was my reasoning when selecting the 'face name' wins rule for fontconfig. -keith -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20050307/eee05984/attachment.pgp
